| 1 |
On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: |
| 3 |
>> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild |
| 4 |
>> the dependent packages. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to |
| 7 |
>> be rebuilt can be listed in it. Only those packages that are installed |
| 8 |
>> would be built. The actual list of the packages to be rebuilt would be |
| 9 |
>> determined at dependency checking time. That way, the user can approve |
| 10 |
>> the rebuild of the packages. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to |
| 13 |
> implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This REBUILD variable is the first idea that pops into the head of |
| 16 |
anyone who's never worked on a dependency resolver before. It's |
| 17 |
backwards because it requires a package to have knowledge of *all* of |
| 18 |
its reverse dependencies, and it should not need to know about *any* of |
| 19 |
them. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are |
| 22 |
very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with |
| 23 |
unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT |
| 24 |
variable as discussed here: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c18 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It's really no more difficult to do than "SLOT operator" dependencies, |
| 29 |
it's more flexible, and we can do it in EAPI 5. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives