Call for comments - pkg_trans

[Norberto Meijome]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200
"Ivan Voras" <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:

> > BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it
> > brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also
> > has port D2 as a dependency.  
> 
> Port N then won't install D2 as it already exists. The user can
> rollback [N], then rollback [M+D1+D2+D3]. Trying to roll back back
> [M+D1+D2+D3] before [N] will show the user a message about
> dependencies.

Shouldn't you be able to request rollback [M + D1 + D2+ D3 ] , but have the dependency of {something else not M} on D2 be detected, and therefore D2 *not* uninstalled?

you'd end up then with M, D1, D3 removed , D2 still installed (as N needs it), and a message saying 'D2 was not removed due to existing dependencies : N '. 

As a matter of fact, i don't really see why we need a transaction system to have an option to {pkg management of choice} to uninstall {unwanted_pkg} and all other dependencies ONLY needed by {unwanted_pkg}. Anyway, pkg_cutleaves does part of it...but it'd be much handier, i think, to handle it @ the uninstall time.

And since we are just wishing for things, It'd be nice to have an opportunity to back off from a install/remove after calculating dependencies, such as that provided by yum (it shows everything it will do and asks for confirmation before proceeding. )

B
PS: Thanks for all great work + time put into all the ports + base!!
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome

Mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't matter

I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet. Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been Warned.