Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: NetBSD System Packages (LONG)
To: Tim Rightnour <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>
Date: 10/01/1998 09:44:58
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Tim Rightnour wrote:
> For example.. If I smoke perl, I should be able to specify -R and blast
> everything that depends on perl. I doubt you want to go in the other direction.
I want: Tell it to nuke perl-Tk, and it will go and nuke off perl, Tk,
tcl, ... IF they aren't needed by something else (hence the "bottom up"
> # Please note that there's nothing special about the pkgs in "meta-pkgs" -
> # these are just normal pkgs that do have other packages as dependencies
> # (which may in turn depend on others again ...). Maybe we should clarify
> # what we're talking about first. .-)
> meta-pkgs are good, assuming they work. I'm not convinced ours really do,
> because they dont pkg_delete recursively.
You're making the same mistake as Jonathan & Jim here: just because the
existing tools don't provide a feature doesn't mean the underlying data
structure doesn't provide it.
pkg_delete could be told to go down into depending pkgs without a need to
change the underlying data structure and thus affecting everything besides
Like I just wrote in answer to a private mail to Jonathan:
Just because our current pkg_* tools are not there yet doesn't mean we
can't get them there. To re-invent things will lead to redundant work and
extra worries once the two things will be merged again (if ever possible).
Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>