Peter Schuller wrote:
>Because 'make update' is far from even usable in many situations. For
>starters, it will cause a huge amount of pacakges to be removed
>before things are re-built, which means that you easilty criple your
>entire system by having 90% of the imporant packages recursively
>removed.
I knew this. Hence the need for pkg_comp.
>And then of course the packages that were removed *ARE NOT
>REINSATLLED* afterwards (I believe these will be the packages that
>were removed due to one of their dependencies being removed, but
>which are not in the dependency path of the top level package where
>one did "make update").
I didn't know this! I hadn't got that far with pkgsrc yet. Sounds
like a serious design error to me.
Well, life seems complicated. I think, at present, lacking a
comprehensive set of binary packages, Joerg's jail solution is the
only possible solution.
Rahul