On 10/3/05, Eivind Eklund <eeklund / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/2/05, Devin Mullins <twifkak / comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > >> On 10/2/05, Devin Mullins <twifkak / comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>`gem uninstall thegems`
> > >> What if other stuff rely on those gems?  Like user-written code?
> > > OK, point. What does apt-get (or ports) do natively to fix this?
> >
> > Nothing. Nothing at all, which makes it something of a nonsense
> > question.
>
> Actually, at least ports does something about this, though it's
> somewhat subtle: It leaves the dependencies behind, and
> listable/deletable by the user using the standard tools.
>
> This avoids breaking user code, at the expense of fairly often leaving
> unwanted packages behind.

I believe that RubyGems currently asks whether a dependency should be
removed or not. This can be something that could be turned into a
policy on a system.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca