Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:38:57
Message-Id: 20110426183838.7366562d@googlemail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers by Ulrich Mueller
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:28:39 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> It's not quite clear what a "block on an ebuild" is, so let's clarify > the wording such that it agrees with portage behaviour. > > Portage ignores self-blockers both in DEPEND and RDEPEND.
Even strong blockers? Also, what happens for packages that can't be rebuilt once they're installed (e.g. because they screw up and use stuff on / if it's there)? We've got this weird situation where DEPEND=!!self would prevent you from upgrading or downgrading, but wouldn't stop you from rebuilding the exact same version. That doesn't seem right. It seems weird that we're mandating that a package manager should just outright ignore bits of dependency variables. Maybe it would be better to mark it as undefined as to whether or not the package manager honours such a block (and tell people not to do it), and then for the next EAPI figure out the logical meaning and specify that? -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>