Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

[Ned Ludd]

On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 11:18 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Saturday 08 April 2006 07:36, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:19 -0400, solar wrote:
> > > FEATURES="buildpkg" ROOT=/ emerge gcc
> > > rm -rf /dev/shm/foo
> > >
> > > ROOT=/dev/shm/foo emerge gcc -pvK
> > >
> > > Notice how it selects the incorrect deps?
> > > IE: eselect cuz it's the first listed dep in the || ( ) vs the
> > > gcc-config
> >
> > + When you already have a copy of gcc-config installed on / and in
> > .tbz2 format in ${PKGDIR}/All and no eselect anywhere.
>
> This should work. I believed I had fixed it by adding the use_binaries
> parameter and code paths to dep_zapdeps. If it's not working then there must
> be a bug left somewhere.

Must be a bug left somewhere then. I just tested with 
Portage 2.1_pre7-r4 and the result is the same.

> Having a quick look at the dep_zapdeps function, I can't see what but I think
> I've discovered another bug. If use_binaries is true, porttree isn't checked
> for matches which means that it'll fall through to the "last resort" code
> when there's no matching binaries which could end up selecting an atom that
> only has masked porttree matches.

yikes.


> Hmm, there could be a problem the other way too. If there is a binary package
> of a masked package and -k (rather than -K) is used, the binary package might
> still be chosen. Either way, I'll do some tests and figure out what's not
> working.

Thanks I/we* appreciate that Jason. If you want me to attempt to file 
a bug for this I can try but I probably wont do it justice.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list