| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:59:58 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > And what if the match for :=3D is |
| 6 |
>> > incompatible with new dependency atom? Like when you replace |
| 7 |
>> > 'dev-foo/bar:=3D' with '>=3Ddev-foo/bar-2:=3D' but bar-1 is |
| 8 |
>> > installed. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> This is simple: The dependency is not satisfied. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That isn't simple at all... It means you can't uninstall or upgrade the |
| 13 |
> package... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Why not? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
How is this any different from unmerging bar-1 back when bar-1 |
| 18 |
satisfied the dependency (using --unmerge which breaks reverse |
| 19 |
dependencies)? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you want to upgrade or re-install the package I would expect |
| 22 |
portage to pull in the missing dependency. I'd expect the next emerge |
| 23 |
-u world to do that as well, which it already does if you --unmerge a |
| 24 |
dependency). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If there would be some unintended side-effect from doing things this |
| 27 |
way I'm all ears, but as long as you don't get into @system circular |
| 28 |
dependencies issues I'd expect portage to be able to install any |
| 29 |
packages that are missing after such a dependency change. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Sure, until the missing dep is installed I'd expect a risk of |
| 32 |
breakage, but that is no different than what I'd expect if the package |
| 33 |
were modified without a bump and the package manager didn't attempt to |
| 34 |
support dynamic dependencies. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives