1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:03:37 +0200 |
4 |
> Micha³ Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> We can basically assume PM merges either DEPEND or RDEPEND to that |
6 |
>> point (depending on whether we're merging source ebuild or binary |
7 |
>> package). |
8 |
|
9 |
> What if something's a binary (i.e. its DEPENDs aren't being installed) |
10 |
> and is being installed as part of an RDEPEND - RDEPEND cycle? |
11 |
|
12 |
Good point, looks like we've missed that case. |
13 |
|
14 |
In fact, Micha³'s first wording included a clause covering circular |
15 |
dependencies, but then I persuaded him that it wouldn't be needed: ;-) |
16 |
|
17 |
<mgorny> http://dpaste.com/592914/ like this? |
18 |
<mgorny> should be simplest words I can think of |
19 |
<ulm> mgorny: why "but see below"? |
20 |
<mgorny> RDEPEND |
21 |
<mgorny> the long parenthesis there :P |
22 |
[...] |
23 |
<ulm> I think that case cannot occur becasue a circular dependency cannot be |
24 |
broken in a place where there's a DEPEND too |
25 |
<mgorny> hm, true I think |
26 |
|
27 |
Ulrich |