List Archive: gentoo-pms
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 Michał Górny <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue.
> I still don't think we should be specifying "RDEPEND is PDEPEND if
> the package manager feels like it". That's something for the package
> mangler to provide as a horrible --ignore-dependencies-to-break-cycles
It's _not_ saying that RDEPEND is like PDEPEND in some cases. The
assertion from your previous message in this thread will always hold:
| The intention with the "usable" stuff is this that purely RDEPEND
| cycles are resolvable, but any such cycles must be resolved before
| any package which has a DEPEND upon anything in the cycle is
| resolved. So if you've got this:
| first <-- rdepend --- second <-- depend --- third
| --- rdepend -->
| Then (first, second, third) and (second, first, third) are the only
| legal orderings. But if either RDEPEND became a DEPEND (and if we're
| not dealing with binary packages) then there would be no legal
This is long-standing Portage behaviour (introduced in 2006 with the
patches attached to bug 147766, I believe).
The footnote would only clarify that in your example neither "first"
nor "second" can rely on their rdepend being available in pkg_*inst.