Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:15:00 -0400 From: Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> To: Josh Rickmar <joshua_rickmar@eumx.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Concern about using pkg_delete -r Message-ID: <1224818100.1624.3.camel@wombat.2hip.net> In-Reply-To: <55557.67.177.142.45.1224816084.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> References: <53980.67.177.142.45.1224810884.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> <49012D63.8020201@math.missouri.edu> <61973.67.177.142.45.1224815151.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> <1224815453.1624.0.camel@wombat.2hip.net> <55557.67.177.142.45.1224816084.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:41 -0400, Josh Rickmar wrote: > On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:30 pm, Robert Noland wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:25 -0400, Josh Rickmar wrote: > > > >> On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:05 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >> > >>> Josh Rickmar wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I'm hoping that this list covers port tools as well as the usual > >>>> discussions about the actual ports. If not, please CC this to the > >>>> proper list. > >>>> > >>>> I want to use pkg_delete to remove an installed port, but also want > >>>> to remove its orphaned dependencies along with it. After looking at > >>>> the pkg_delete(1) man page, the -r flag seems to be the option to > >>>> use for this job. My concern, though, is about the wording: > >>>> > >>>>> In addition to specified packages, delete all > >>>>> packages that depend on those packages as well. > >>>> > >>>> Does this mean that if I pkg_delete -r pkgA, than pkgB (a > >>>> dependency) will be removed with it, even though it is dependency of > >>>> pkgC? Or is pkg_delete (or pkg_deinstall) smart enough to > >>>> understand this dependency and keep pkgB installed? > >>>> > >>>> If in this scenario pkgB would be deleted, should an extra warning > >>>> be added to the man page so that users know that using this flag > >>>> could potentially break their other ports? > >>> > >>> I think you have the dependency relationship the wrong way around. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you do "pkg_delete -r pkgA", and pkgA is a dependency of pkgB (not > >>> the other way around as you have it), then pkgB will be deleted. > >>> > >> > >> Ah, my bad. Yeah, after re-reading the wording it seems that is the > >> case. > >> > >> What about for pkg_deinstall (part of portupgrade)? According to its > >> man page, it has two options, --recursive (-r) and --upward-recursive > >> (-R). > >> Maybe it's just a little bit late, but what /exactly/ is the differenc= e? > >> It sounds like the --upward-recursive option would be better called > >> --downward-recursive, since it will remove the ports/packages "below" > >> it. > > > > Semantically, it is an inverted tree... i.e. the root is at the top. > > > > > > robert. >=20 > OK, I guess that makes sense. >=20 > > > >> So, if that is the case, would pkg_deinstall -R pkgA remove pkgB or > >> not? > >> > > >=20 > Well, I tested using pkg_deinstall -rRn, and if I were to remove the -n > flag, it would be uninstalling ports all the way down to gettext. Not > good. So, it would be removing 'pkgB' with this option. Any way to > prevent this? The removal of ports which are required by some other port will fail. robert. --=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkkBPbQACgkQM4TrQ4qfROModgCbBR30MRfzxvItSGolJQI3NVdq vtcAni5jNVQnJEtMGoCRThdc+cP56Ceo =ySIe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1224818100.1624.3.camel>