On 30/08/17 10:04 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/30/2017 09:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> For adding this to FEATURES and RESTRICT, are we moving into PMS >> modification territory? And if so, is this something we want to do >> just for this? >> > > The new RESTRICT value would need a PMS update, but the "just for this" > part is where it gets good. The only reason I need it is for a reference > implementation of the idea that needs it, to determine if the idea is > any good or not. > > It would be a lot of trouble to go through just to find out that my > proposal is junk. >
Oh, well, a patch to portage (or an unofficial EAPI for testing) just to evaluate your proposal wouldn't be a big deal I expect, if indeed this is the direction to go. I wonder though, per the original idea, wouldn't it make more sense to allow uninstallation to continue and just very verbosely warn/log/document what the package removal didn't do, so that it can be done later by hand as needed?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
