1 |
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0500 |
2 |
Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
> Because in my opinion, portage is the first thing in line to keep a |
6 |
> system sane. Installing packages that are not needed means that |
7 |
> portage fails on that. So in your example, portage fails to do its |
8 |
> due diligence and it falls to the users to do it for portage. Yep, |
9 |
> sounds like a good idea. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
No, portage does what the dependencies are telling it to do. I.e., if |
13 |
you have unversioned dev-lang/python in DEPEND, or |
14 |
>=dev-lang/python-2.4 or whatever similar then it installs |
15 |
>dev-lang/python:3 - why? Because the ebuilds tell portage that it will |
16 |
work like that. Another example: you have an ebuild that only works w/ |
17 |
gtk+-1* - you don't go to the ML asking for masking gtk+-2* but instead |
18 |
go and fix the dependencies to properly reflect that. So, now you can go |
19 |
and fix the dependencies treewide, or you can simply mask it *locally* |
20 |
if you don't want it. You'd still need to mask it if you install |
21 |
something that *really* works with both 2.x and 3.1 slots if you don't |
22 |
want python-3. It's like with any other slotted stuff in the tree, but |
23 |
for a reason unknown to me it's a huge issue all of a sudden because |
24 |
wheeee, t3h noes, it's python. |
25 |
|
26 |
And on that note - noone cares why people has lots of dev-libs/boost |
27 |
slots installed and why's the darned thing slotted on every minor |
28 |
version. So while talking about wrong dependencies, maybe the boost |
29 |
maintainer could explain why do we need it slotted like this: |
30 |
SLOT="$(get_version_component_range 1-2)" - simply because I'm tired of |
31 |
depcleaning it all the time as nothing requires multiple slots of this |
32 |
thing here. |
33 |
|
34 |
Cheers, |
35 |
|
36 |
DN |