View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
andrewwalker27 l33t
Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 660
|
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:32 pm Post subject: depclean wants to remove nano (SOLVED) |
|
|
When I do emerge -pv depclean portage wants to remove nano for some reason! He's the relevant output
>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:
!!! 'app-editors/nano' (virtual/editor) is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
app-editors/nano
selected: 2.3.1
protected: none
omitted: none
If it's part of my system profile why would it try and delete it, especially as it's not an old slotted package? Can anyone give me a clue as to where to start looking to fix it? I'm running ~x86_64 and it seems to be a recent update that caused it but I'm running ~x86_64 on other machines and not experienced this.
Any ideas anyone?
Last edited by andrewwalker27 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003 Posts: 54098 Location: 56N 3W
|
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
andrewwalker27,
The system editor is now provided by virtual/editor and it prefers ed, so nano is no longer required, if you can use ed.
To keep nano, you need to add it to your world set. Code: | emerge --noreplace nano | will do that for you. _________________ Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrewwalker27 l33t
Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 660
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, I've marked it as solved.
Does this mean that future releases will no longer use nano as all the manuals refer to it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Goverp Veteran
Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 1972
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
NeddySeagoon wrote: | ...The system editor is now provided by virtual/editor and it prefers ed... | Gosh! You mean all that time I spent learning edlin for MS-DOS wasn't wasted? This isn't April 1st is it?
Out of interest, was there a sane reason for letting --depclean remove the de-facto Gentoo editor? There may be reason to make ed the default (though I have to screw my eye up really tight to see it), but given nano's history in Gentoo, IMHO it ought to have remained a dependency of something - maybe baselayout - until the documentation's changed. Oh well, it's water under the bridge now. _________________ Greybeard |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10587 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Portage & Programming to Duplicate Threads. See --depclean wants to remove nano! for a truly phenomenal amount of commentary.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|