Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Sean P. Kane" <spkane@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] Portage as a dependency
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:57:42
Message-Id: C42D120999B1CC4C886B6BB2832F356019BB5B@hermes.genomatica.com
1 An example of a package is x11-base/xfree-4.2.1-r2 which requries a
2 version of Portage that doesn't experience BUG 13013
3 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13013. If people know this it
4 would be very helpful to either makrk it as a dependency, which may
5 actually be too difficult for package mantainers to keep updated, or
6 allow Portage to have an auto-update feature that will always update
7 Portage before doing other emerges.
8
9 Sean
10
11
12 -----Original Message-----
13 From: Dylan Carlson [mailto:absinthe@×××××.com]
14 Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 19:30
15 To: Sean P. Kane; gentoo-dev@g.o
16 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage as a dependency
17
18
19 On Thursday 06 February 2003 06:17 pm, Sean P. Kane wrote:
20 > I reported a bug earlier today that turned out to be caused by a
21 > slightly older version of Portage. Shouldn't we consider having
22 > portage or the ebuilds handle this type of situation better, by either
23
24 > having the ebuilds have a particular version of portage as a
25 > dependency or making portage always check for a newer stable version
26 > of portage whenever it does an emerge and then upgrading to that
27 > first.
28
29 RDEPEND=">=sys-apps/portage-2.0.47", as an example, is one way an ebuild
30
31 can do it.
32
33 Furthermore, Portage should be backward compatible with ebuilds written
34 for
35 earlier versions. DEPEND/RDEPEND should be all that is necessary in
36 situations where an ebuild depends on a newer, masked version of Portage
37
38 -- if that is in fact necessary.
39
40 Cheers,
41 Dylan Carlson
42
43 --
44 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
45
46
47 --
48 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage as a dependency Alain Penders <alain@g.o>