| 1 |
Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 03:18 -0700, Brian Harring a écrit : |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:10:20PM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 3 |
> > jumping on the train here, but who said PM would not feed proper data to |
| 4 |
> > pkg_pretend so it would behave like the DEPEND were already built. Could |
| 5 |
> > some guy involved in a PM development tell us about how this would be |
| 6 |
> > handled ? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Good idea, but not really viable. The only scenario where this would |
| 9 |
> work cleanly is in has_version checks which most of the time should be |
| 10 |
> blockers/deps anyways. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's indeed the only thing I was thinking of |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Basically, you want the PM to lie to the ebuild in some fashion. |
| 15 |
> Since pkg_pretend is free form, it's effectively impossible to cover |
| 16 |
> the scenarios it could check on- consider checking the kernel |
| 17 |
> config/version, or checking the active jvm/python version. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
except the kernel will not change during the upgrade, unless you reboot |
| 20 |
in the middle of the upgrade but I would expect the PM to recompute |
| 21 |
pkg_pretend in resume. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Some of those can sort of be handled, but it requires a lot of custom |
| 24 |
> code (code that has to change as the tools involved change) to pull it |
| 25 |
> off. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> As said, good idea, but it was ruled out due to it being techically |
| 28 |
> infeasible considering the gains. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Since I have little insight on the rest I will trust whatever decision |
| 31 |
has been taken. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 35 |
Gentoo |
Archives