On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:10:02 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: >> * has only limited support for uninstalling. The biggest problem is >> that there's no reverse-dependency tracking, you can unmerge a library >> and it will not know there are still programs depending on it which >> will be broken by the unmerge. This can be particularly bad on >> upgrades: when you upgrade a library to an incompatible version (new >> soname), it will just do it even when there are >> still packages depending on the old version, breaking those packages. >> And no, rebuilding everything (i.e. emerge remerge world) isn't really >> an efficient solution to this problem. >> >> > Not necessarily; Portage has a tool called "revdep-rebuild" which takes > care of rebuilding any package which no longer has proper dynamic > library linkage. If a portage type system can uninstall well, and I believe that to be the case, that seals it for me. The advantages of a portage type system are greater than those of a yum type system. Sabayon may have screwed things up, but a system which compiles most things from source in a portage type way, with a few exceptions which are time intensive, would be easier to maintain and thus larger. Open Office, the kernel, things like that could be prebuilt. I mean this really as food for thought for you guys. FC6 and Fedora 7 greatly improved in terms of the ease of use of yum. However, there's a FC6 yum repo and a Fedora 7 repo. Why? That seems like completely unnecessary duplication which wouldn't occur in a build-from-source package manager. As a user, I hesitate to upgrade because of the lag as third party repos slowly catch up to Fedora versions. Again, thank you for the lively discussion :) -Thufir -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
