| 1 |
On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:01:22 +0300 |
| 2 |
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> is paludis expected to behave like portage in the near future |
| 4 |
> regarding these blocks? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Probably not. My issue with the way Portage does soft blocks is that |
| 7 |
it's way too arbitrary, fuzzy and ill defined. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
There were plans to do blocks properly (include annotations that would |
| 10 |
let the developer tell the package manager to point the user to a URL |
| 11 |
explaining the block and how to resolve it) back before Zac went and |
| 12 |
did his own thing. One of the goals was to tell the package manager |
| 13 |
exactly what was meant by the block, allowing the package manager to |
| 14 |
come up with a much more sensible and far less dangerous solution. If |
| 15 |
those plans are ever revived, Paludis would support them. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> are there any plans to add support for these kinds of cases in the |
| 18 |
> PMS? other sets of packages could probably benefit from such a feature |
| 19 |
> as well. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't recall any existing discussion about such a feature (beyond me |
| 22 |
moaning in pre-EAPI days about vim/gvim/vim-core breaking in the same |
| 23 |
way Qt does). So... The way to start is probably by identifying the |
| 24 |
problem in detail, and identifying other groups of packages affected by |
| 25 |
similar issues, so we can work out what exactly it is we'd be looking |
| 26 |
to fix. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives