| 1 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:28:39 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> It's not quite clear what a "block on an ebuild" is, so let's clarify |
| 4 |
> the wording such that it agrees with portage behaviour. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Portage ignores self-blockers both in DEPEND and RDEPEND. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Even strong blockers? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Also, what happens for packages that can't be rebuilt once they're |
| 11 |
installed (e.g. because they screw up and use stuff on / if it's there)? |
| 12 |
We've got this weird situation where DEPEND=!!self would prevent you |
| 13 |
from upgrading or downgrading, but wouldn't stop you from rebuilding |
| 14 |
the exact same version. That doesn't seem right. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It seems weird that we're mandating that a package manager should just |
| 17 |
outright ignore bits of dependency variables. Maybe it would be better |
| 18 |
to mark it as undefined as to whether or not the package manager |
| 19 |
honours such a block (and tell people not to do it), and then for the |
| 20 |
next EAPI figure out the logical meaning and specify that? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives