| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aCOSwt
Bodhisattva
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 9:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Its a wise man who knows he can have the last word but chooses not to. |
TomWij, steveL : Since I became a moderator, I now get means to demonstrate that I am, and by far, the less wise.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| /me dribbles on aCOSwt ;p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2301
Location: Adendorf, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2014 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, guys, forget that I ever asked for closing this thread!  So much fun! *tehehe*
_________________
Edited 220,176 times by Yamakuzure |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54640
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yamakuzure,
Gentoo won't die while this thread or its successors continue to attract attention.
| Samuel Langhorne Clemens wrote: | | The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. |
Thats probably a misquote but you get the idea
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| developer1 wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | What do you mean by unstable? |
By unstable I mean situation in which you install one packet which you need end system installs tons of (not needed) bloat....where many bloat conflicts with each other and emerge is no help. And (most often) this is starting point of unstability of OS. No matter what you do afterwards you cannot roll back to stability. |
You guys are ripping on him, but I THINK I understand what he's getting at, so allow me to see if I can give a relatively concrete scenario, and you guys can chit down my neck if I'm wrong. I well preface this by saying I don't understand what he means by "stability." Anyway, here goes.
I've just started experimenting with gentoo again after about a decade of using various ubuntu-based distros, and I'm not sure what I want my gui to look like. Consequentially I want to install things, try them, and if I don't like them, uninstall them.
So I'm picking a DM
Hrrmm, let me try xdm
emerge -a xdm - >long list of packages portage is goint to install
xdm sucks, I'm going to uninstall it, and try slim
emerge --depclean -a xdm
no dependecies.
Wait...wut? But when I installed it there were a shitload, what's going on here!?
Obviously this doesn't effect "stability" but one would expect the exact same number of packages to be uninstalled as were installed, and I've noticed this with a lot of the GUI stuff: DMs, WMs, DEs, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | emerge --depclean -a xdm
no dependecies.
Wait...wut? But when I installed it there were a shitload, what's going on here!?
|
(from my understanding of deepclean that might be false)
When use with a package --depclean runs differently and only consider that package deps.
So if xdm need X and X need Y.
running --depclean xdm will consider to remove X as a dependency of xdm. But it cannot remove X because Y need it and Y is a dep of X but not a dep of xdm itself.
It can be seen sometimes just doing that :
emerge --depclean
And portage stop and complain you must fully upgrade your system so it can make a full graph of your system.
But not updating your system, if you run emerge --depclean xdm, this time it won't complain and will be happy to remove xdm.
Still that's not a proof i'm right, just a proof the dep handling is different in both modes of usage. So for me, with package atom depclean only consider direct deps of that atom and not the full deps list.
There's also a difference between bloat and useless, not running depclean you will still have useless thing on your system ; but as those things are not use, they are not bloat themselves.
It's different to have a program that you don't need or use on your system and that same program not need or use that is running.
People doesn't really complain that distro X or Y have wireless tools install when they don't even have any wireless device, but more complain that it runs those tools (as this time, more than space is taken).
USE flag handle bloat, depclean handle useless.
But you don't need to explain anything to that guy, developer1 is just a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | developer1 wrote: | | By unstable I mean situation in which you install one packet which you need end system installs tons of (not needed) bloat....where many bloat conflicts with each other and emerge is no help. And (most often) this is starting point of unstability of OS. No matter what you do afterwards you cannot roll back to stability. |
You guys are ripping on him, but I THINK I understand what he's getting at, so allow me to see if I can give a relatively concrete scenario [...] |
kick6 ... you're being selective in your interpretation as your example doesn't cover much of the above, ie, "tons of (not needed) bloat", "where many bloat conflicts with each other", "emerge is no help" , "you cannot roll back to stability". None of this is true, dependencies are dependencies, if the packages has X as a dependency that is not "bloat", its what the package needs to function (I'm not saying this is *always* true, but in most cases it is). This "bloat", "conflict", "no help", "no matter what" is entirely the outcome of the users choices and ability to handle the packaging system. Portage does track dependencies, and it doesn't install anything that isn't explicitly stated as a dependency, "conflicts" are explicitly blocked, and there are various means of "rolling back" changes. All of this requires some understand of how the system works ... without that it simply isn't possible to make the system work for you ... its not designed with the causal user in mind.
So, that said, to your example:
| kick6 wrote: | | Code: | | emerge --depclean -a xdm |
no dependecies. Wait...wut? But when I installed it there were a shitload, what's going on here!? |
Yes, because you provided 'xdm' as the atom, it did exactly as you asked. If you want to --depclean any packages installed that are not explicitly depended upon then simply --depclean ...
| Code: | | # emerge --depclean --ask |
So, after removing xdm the above would provide those packages which were pulled in by xdm and are no longer required.
| kick6 wrote: | | Obviously this doesn't effect "stability" but one would expect the exact same number of packages to be uninstalled as were installed, and I've noticed this with a lot of the GUI stuff: DMs, WMs, DEs, etc. |
You're missing the fact that the package and the packages dependencies are two separate things ... if '--depclean xdm' also removed the deps then this would be to treat them as the same, which they are not.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: |
Yes, because you provided 'xdm' as the atom, it did exactly as you asked. If you want to --depclean any packages installed that are not explicitly depended upon then simply --depclean ...
| Code: | | # emerge --depclean --ask |
So, after removing xdm the above would provide those packages which were pulled in by xdm and are no longer required. |
In my mind, if the very last package I explicitly installed was xdm, any packages portage also installed would be dependencies JUST for xdm. Therefore, using xdm as the atom should roll back all of those dependencies with xdm...right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | In my mind, if the very last package I explicitly installed was xdm, any packages portage also installed would be dependencies JUST for xdm. Therefore, using xdm as the atom should roll back all of those dependencies with xdm...right? |
kick6 ... no, wrong :) ... firstly, portage doesn't make any distinction between when a package was installed and its dependencies, it not in the business of second guessing what your intentions are. Secondly, what if in such a situation you only want xdm depcleaned?
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | kick6 wrote: | | In my mind, if the very last package I explicitly installed was xdm, any packages portage also installed would be dependencies JUST for xdm. Therefore, using xdm as the atom should roll back all of those dependencies with xdm...right? |
kick6 ... no, wrong  ... firstly, portage doesn't make any distinction between when a package was installed and its dependencies, it not in the business of second guessing what your intentions are. Secondly, what if in such a situation you only want xdm depcleaned?
best ... khay |
OK not *when* it was installed, but if I made no other changes to the system because xdm was the last thing installed it should be obvious that all of the packages that portage said it was going to install with xdm were dependencies of only xdm. Ergo, I didn't go and install 42 other things that now depend on the same packages. So I guess I still don't quite understand what depclean does with an atom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | OK not *when* it was installed, but if I made no other changes to the system because xdm was the last thing installed it should be obvious that all of the packages that portage said it was going to install with xdm were dependencies of only xdm. Ergo, I didn't go and install 42 other things that now depend on the same packages. So I guess I still don't quite understand what depclean does with an atom. |
kick6 ... you're not taking into account my subseqent question, and again "obvious" would be to second guess your intentions, which is not what any computer program should do.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: |
kick6 ... you're not taking into account my subseqent question, and again "obvious" would be to second guess your intentions, which is not what any computer program should do.
best ... khay |
I didn't quite understand the question. I wanted to remove xdm, and remove all packages that only xdm had listed as dependencies. As I've installed nothing SINCE installing xdm, that should be every single package that portage installed with xdm. Is this not "depcleaning xdm?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russK
l33t
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lately I've been doing it this way:
| Code: | # emerge --update --deep --newuse @world
# emerge --deselect xdm
# emerge --depclean
|
Works for me. YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54640
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kick6,
You --depclean your system, not a package.
| man emerge: |
--depclean (-c)
Cleans the system by removing packages that are not associated
with explicitly merged packages. Depclean works by creating the
full dependency tree from the @world set, then comparing it to
installed packages. Packages installed, but not part of the
dependency tree, will be uninstalled by depclean. See
--with-bdeps for behavior with respect to build time dependen-
cies that are not strictly required. Packages that are part of
the world set will always be kept. They can be manually added to
this set with emerge --noreplace <atom>. As a safety measure,
depclean will not remove any packages unless *all* required
dependencies have been resolved. As a consequence, it is often
necessary to run emerge --update --newuse --deep @world prior to
depclean. Also note that depclean may break link level dependen-
cies, especially when the --depclean-lib-check option is dis-
abled. Thus, it is recommended to use a tool such as revdep-
rebuild(1) in order to detect such breakage.
|
This means you remove a package then you --depclean your system.
In your example, if you ripped out all the dependancies of xdm, then added slim, many of the dependancies you just removed would be reinstalled.
So you should remove xdm add slim, then clean up. The extra builds may not matter to you but they matter on slow hardware.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aiken
Apprentice
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 239
Location: Toowoomba/Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: |
I didn't quite understand the question. I wanted to remove xdm, and remove all packages that only xdm had listed as dependencies. As I've installed nothing SINCE installing xdm, that should be every single package that portage installed with xdm. Is this not "depcleaning xdm?" |
From my own playing with emerge --depclean xdm it will only offer to uninstall xdm and nothing else. As long as nothing depends on xdm. If I try emerge -a --depclean kdelibs then nothing happens as there are packages that depend on kdelibs.
To do what you wanted I do that in a 2 step process.
emerge -C xdm
emerge -a --depclean
Remove xdm then clean up anything that was pulled in by xdm and no longer needed.
_________________
Beware the grue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think I'm beginning to understand. Thanks guys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
livibetter
n00b
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 63
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | I think I'm beginning to understand. Thanks guys. |
Glad to hear that! Here is a small tip, whenever I try to --depclean, I always do with -v, because, for example:
| Code: | $ emerge --depclean -v -p portage
Calculating dependencies... done!
sys-apps/portage-2.2.8-r1 pulled in by:
app-admin/python-updater-0.11 requires >=sys-apps/portage-2.1.6
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.3.0.7 requires sys-apps/portage
virtual/package-manager-0 requires sys-apps/portage
>>> No packages selected for removal by depclean
Packages installed: 1018
Packages in world: 39
Packages in system: 44
Required packages: 1018
Number to remove: 0
|
Because I can always know what is trying to keep the package that I am trying to remove, so I don't need to do more checking.
And remember: when in doubt, man up.
manpages and get the thing (command) talkative -v might have the answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another point is that depclean won't remove build-dependencies, by default.
You have to use: | Code: | | emerge -ca --with-bdeps=n [foo] |
(replace -c with --depclean if you prefer.)
| Code: | Depclean serves as a dependency aware version of --unmerge. When given
one or more atoms, it will unmerge matched packages that have no reverse
dependencies. Use --depclean together with --verbose to show reverse
dependencies. |
So afaik, that's not going to do what you want; you still need to run it without parms to get it to run the full sweep. Though it does have its uses (as a safe unmerge, followed by a standard depclean, removing bdeps if you want, though I don't advise it in general.)
Note if you want emerge install actions to include build-deps for purposes of flag changes or upgrade (apart from as specifically required by incoming ebuilds) you need to use --with-bdeps=y, eg when you emerge -uDN @world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | [...] you're not taking into account my subseqent question, [...] |
I didn't quite understand the question. |
kick6 ... I asked "what if in such a situation you only want xdm depcleaned", there are situations in which you only want that one package removed, and that is why not doing the "obvious" but only doing what is asked explicitly is better. Neddy provides a situation in which you would only want xdm removed, and not the dependencies ...
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | In your example, if you ripped out all the dependancies of xdm, then added slim, many of the dependancies you just removed would be reinstalled. |
| kick6 wrote: | | I wanted to remove xdm, and remove all packages that only xdm had listed as dependencies. As I've installed nothing SINCE installing xdm, that should be every single package that portage installed with xdm. Is this not "depcleaning xdm?" |
Again, this idea of "since" is not something that portage tracks, it doesn't matter if a dependency was installed two years ago, or two minutes ago.
Your understanding of '--depclean' is that is should cover dependencies of the atom, when it only considers dependencies for the atom. That I think is the correct method of doing things, because it doesn't second guess what you *might* want but only what you explicitly state. So, '--deselect atom' and then '--depclean' does what you want, but only as you're explictly stating to depclean the entire system.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: |
Again, this idea of "since" is not something that portage tracks, it doesn't matter if a dependency was installed two years ago, or two minutes ago.
|
You're still misunderstanding my inclusion of since. I'm not talking about a time component. All I was saying was that xdm installs a bunch of dependencies, however, those packages were not dependencies of anything else because they were not on the system prior to installing xdm, and because I made no other changes to the system after xdm, the only thing that is dependent on them is xdm. It was merely proof that I didn't goof about and install a bunch of stuff and the reason my depclean is failing is not because of attempting to uninstall xdm, but because of some other package I installed that happens to share dependencies with xdm.
BUT it doesn't matter, things have been cleared up for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | Again, this idea of "since" is not something that portage tracks, it doesn't matter if a dependency was installed two years ago, or two minutes ago. |
You're still misunderstanding my inclusion of since. I'm not talking about a time component. All I was saying was that xdm installs a bunch of dependencies, however, those packages were not dependencies of anything else because they were not on the system prior to installing xdm, and because I made no other changes to the system after xdm, the only thing that is dependent on them is xdm. |
kick6 ... I don't think I am misunderstanding ... "prior" and "after" are "time components" and as I said this is not something that portage tracks.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | kick6 wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | Again, this idea of "since" is not something that portage tracks, it doesn't matter if a dependency was installed two years ago, or two minutes ago. |
You're still misunderstanding my inclusion of since. I'm not talking about a time component. All I was saying was that xdm installs a bunch of dependencies, however, those packages were not dependencies of anything else because they were not on the system prior to installing xdm, and because I made no other changes to the system after xdm, the only thing that is dependent on them is xdm. |
kick6 ... I don't think I am misunderstanding ... "prior" and "after" are "time components" and as I said this is not something that portage tracks.
best ... khay |
You're still misunderstanding as the timing had nothing to do with it. Maybe a better way of stating it would be "I installed xdm in a vacuum." But you've focused on the wrong thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | You're still misunderstanding as the timing had nothing to do with it. |
kick6 ... no, I'm not misunderstanding anything, I've made it clear from the outset *why* an atom is not the same as its dependencies. The "timing" thing came as a consequence of that as you are insistent that because xdm has been depcleaned portage should also depclean its dependencies, and as I initially pointed out that would be to treat the atom and the dependencies as the same thing. Since then you've tried to skirt that by saying "they were not on the system prior to installing xdm" as though this provides some criteria for portage to link the atom and its dependencies. That is how the "time component" was introduced, you wanted that somehow the dependencies are synonymous with the atom by virtue of them "not [being] on the system prior".
| kick6 wrote: | | Maybe a better way of stating it would be "I installed xdm in a vacuum." But you've focused on the wrong thing. |
You installed an atom, that caused its dependencies to be pulled in, they are separate from one another. That is what I focused on.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kick6
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Golden, Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: |
you wanted that somehow the dependencies are synonymous with the atom by virtue of them "not [being] on the system prior". |
No, I was merely pointing that out to show that no other packages are/were dependent on them as well. only xdm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kick6 wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | you wanted that somehow the dependencies are synonymous with the atom by virtue of them "not [being] on the system prior". |
No, I was merely pointing that out to show that no other packages are/were dependent on them as well. only xdm. |
kick6 ... this is getting tedious.
| kick6 wrote: | | In my mind, if the very last package I explicitly installed was xdm, any packages portage also installed would be dependencies JUST for xdm. Therefore, using xdm as the atom should roll back all of those dependencies with xdm...right? |
So, in other words "dependencies are synonymous with the atom".
best ... khay
Last edited by khayyam on Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
