| 1 |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:57:11 +0200 |
| 2 |
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I miss two things here: |
| 4 |
> a) What happens in case of DEPEND="", RDEPEND=">=cat/bar-2:=" ? Is |
| 5 |
> that defined? If yes, what does it mean? If not, what shall be the |
| 6 |
> package managers behaviour? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
:= only makes sense when something is both a DEPEND and an RDEPEND. |
| 9 |
Actual behaviour, for Paludis, is that it rewrites := deps to :=blah |
| 10 |
when writing to VDB any time it can, and leaves anything it can't as := |
| 11 |
deps. Verifying sanity of := use is left to developers and the QA tool. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> b) It is not said that a package depending on "|| ( cat/bar:2 |
| 14 |
> cat/bar:3 )" then really uses cat/bar:3 if available, it might as |
| 15 |
> well use cat/bar:2 for one reason or another. It might be clearer if |
| 16 |
> we have slots named "stable", "unstable". In such a case a package |
| 17 |
> depending on cat/bar might decided to use cat/bar:stable if available |
| 18 |
> instead of cat/bar:unstable. So, the spec should either state that |
| 19 |
> the package must use the best matching version or we need another way |
| 20 |
> for such cases, like a function to explicitly tell the pm which slot |
| 21 |
> has been used. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The only sensible thing you can do with multiple matches on := slots |
| 24 |
(and ||=, if that route is taken) is to take the slot of the best |
| 25 |
matching installed version, and require that ebuilds do that too. In |
| 26 |
real world cases, this works just fine. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives