| 1 |
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:51:09 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| So with your DEPEND="|| ( tetex ptex )" case, you're saying that it |
| 4 |
| is valid because the choice of tetex or ptex doesn't affect the |
| 5 |
| resultant binaries? Extrapolating that, specifying link dependencies |
| 6 |
| within an || construct is flat out wrong? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yep. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
| If so, it's way out of my domain so I can't really comment other than |
| 11 |
| you haven't given a reason for this requirement. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The reason is that that's all Portage and the current VDB and |
| 14 |
binary formats permit. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| Having said that, I'll accept it if we're strictly talking in the |
| 17 |
| EAPI-0 domain as there is no way for a package manager to guarantee a |
| 18 |
| safe --depclean implmentation given that raw *DEPENDs are stored in |
| 19 |
| the current installed package database. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Right. Even as a >EAPI-0 requirement, the way it is now (slots |
| 22 |
excluded) makes sense because it's the easiest way of guaranteeing |
| 23 |
consistency of binary packages. Users should never (excluding |
| 24 |
blockers, which are a different issue) be forced to uninstall a package |
| 25 |
just so that a binary builds in a particular way. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 29 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 30 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 31 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives