Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-pms
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@...>
Subject: Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 07:01:13 -0700
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:13:35AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/12/2011 01:18 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> > 
> >> True. How about pkg_setup()? Shall we assume RDEPEND are there or
> >> rely on @system only?
> > 
> > IIUC, with Portage's breaking of dependency cycles there's no absolute
> > guarantee that packages in RDEPEND will be available in pkg_*.
> It would be more accurate to say that it's guaranteed except for cases
> in which circular dependencies make it impossible to guarantee.

Those instances shouldn't be just dropped by the manager; a 
--force-break-ebuild-rules option for those cases is one thing, same 
for attempting multiple merge/replace to break a use cycle.

But if it just says "meh" to a cycle... that's wrong.

Under what scenarios will it pull that?

Rephrasing *DEPEND
-- Michał Górny
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
-- Michał Górny
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
-- Zac Medico
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
Next by thread:
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
Previous by date:
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND
Next by date:
Re: Rephrasing *DEPEND

Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.