| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 08:56:45PM +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:45:20PM -0500, Brian D. Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Not tenuable |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > What you're effectivelly suggesting is that portage stomp ahead and, |
| 6 |
> > hit a failure, try and figure out what atom would fix the failure, |
| 7 |
> > retry, wash rinse repeat. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about something to help an |
| 10 |
> ebuild writer. If I'm emerging my newly written ebuild and it works, I |
| 11 |
> still may have missed a few build dependencies. This situation would |
| 12 |
> probably result in a lot of ebuilds with incomplete build dependencies |
| 13 |
> and a lot of work for the cross-compiling people. By using a tool like |
| 14 |
> I described, I can see what I still need to add to the list. |
| 15 |
Best solution in my opinion for such a tool is abuse of binpkgs + |
| 16 |
chroot for testing, but that's beyond portage's focus, should be an |
| 17 |
external tool. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
A tool to do analysis of a package/ebuild and discern the BDEPEND's I |
| 20 |
could see, just thought you were suggesting it be defacto on the fly |
| 21 |
thing :) |
| 22 |
~harring |
Archives