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