| 1 |
On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:04:27 +0300 |
| 2 |
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Unfortunately we've got reports from paludis users stating that they |
| 4 |
> can't update QT from qting-edge anymore. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Paludis treats blocks as strong, the way Portage used to and the way |
| 7 |
PMS defined them until we had to retroactively change it to allow |
| 8 |
Portage's newer behaviour... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> 1) Is there a saner way to achieve our goal of doing whatever is |
| 11 |
> possible to avoid mixed QT versions? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Not really. There's no particularly good mechanism for ensuring equal |
| 14 |
versions of things where not everything has to be installed. The best |
| 15 |
option I can think of is to have a meta package called, say, split-qt, |
| 16 |
and to do all your external (not inter-qt-library) dependencies as: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
x11-libs/split-qt[gui][xmlpatterns] |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
and then have x11-libs/split-qt's deps be like: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
gui? ( ~x11-libs/qt-gui-${PV} ) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> 2) Is our implementation considered correct and acceptable by the PMS |
| 25 |
> guys? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The way PMS defines blockers has been rewritten to allow both what |
| 28 |
Portage used to do and what Portage now does. It's fairly horrible, but |
| 29 |
unfortunately Zac changed Portage's behaviour (breaking anything that |
| 30 |
relied upon strong blockers, hence the quickly-hacked-in !! blocker |
| 31 |
hack) without EAPI control. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives