1 |
chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: |
2 |
> On 03/04/2010 08:57 PM, Patrick Nagel wrote: |
3 |
>> Obviously, users who "re-install" Gentoo the way you do will have less |
4 |
>> difficulties resolving a circular dependency than those who are just |
5 |
>> following |
6 |
>> the guide and getting their first Gentoo experience. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I think that the cups issue is probably worth mentioning in the |
9 |
> Handbook. Whether it is there by default or not lots of people get |
10 |
> burned by it. A little advanced warning would help. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I think that at the very least following the handbooks to the letter |
13 |
> should never lead to an error. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I think that a good argument can be made for or against having cups in |
16 |
> the desktop profile - this might actually be the sort of thing a |
17 |
> survey would be useful to address. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I think that is separate from the circular dependency issue. As long |
20 |
> as we have an unresolved circular dependency I think cups should be |
21 |
> off the list. However, I'd be the first to agree that this is a |
22 |
> short-term solution. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> The problem is that we only have two long-term solutions so far: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> 1. A smarter package manager that can work through these dependencies |
27 |
> automatically. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> 2. Splitting packages like poppler that have these issues. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Both of these need effort to address. #1 requires PM work, and #2 |
32 |
> requires an ongoing commitment to do more work to keep poppler working. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Unless somebody can come up with a #3 at this point the most |
35 |
> constructive thing anybody can do is help out. A good place to start |
36 |
> would be to write up some patches to the handbook that clearly explain |
37 |
> how to deal with this problem. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> I'm not sure I agree with the poppler maintainers but they may have |
40 |
> reasons that aren't apparent to me and the fact is that it is a whole |
41 |
> lot easier to tell somebody how to maintain a package when I'm not the |
42 |
> one actually doing the work. Nothing gets results in FOSS like dirty |
43 |
> hands... |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Rich |
46 |
> |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
Well said. I agree with this. The devs may not be able to fix this |
50 |
specific issue but circular deps come up. We need a long term fix and |
51 |
now is as good a time as any to start thinking of one. Heck, I don't |
52 |
expect this to be done this week. It may take months to fix this or |
53 |
just figure out a way to do it. I just know this is becoming a problem |
54 |
and it isn't getting any better even tho people are trying. I would |
55 |
like to see a solution like happened with the blocks issue. Just some |
56 |
way that is easy for the devs to keep the tree clean but also have a |
57 |
package manager that can work around this. Even if it means portage |
58 |
spitting out a message that some packages shouldn't be used during the |
59 |
update because some packages have to be uninstalled first, that would be |
60 |
good. Let portage wait for a yes/no reply before doing the updates and |
61 |
doing them as close to first thing as possible. Read that as, don't |
62 |
compile openoffice then come back to the deps part. |
63 |
|
64 |
Progress. |
65 |
|
66 |
Dale |
67 |
|
68 |
:-) :-) |