Re: [gentoo-dev] Help offered - Portage tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 14:48 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > As much as I hate to say it, your example was rather bunk, because
> > openssl changed SONAME during that time.  Keeping the package
>
> You're right here.  After review, the problem was the difference between 0.9.8e and
> 0.9.8g, the latter of which provided some form of newer symbol that wasn't in e.
> But the concept is the same.

Correct.  That would not have been caught and would be an issue, still.

> > Uhh... >= in RDEPEND does that, already... Also, this wouldn't have
> > resolved your openssl issue, at all.  Your machine scenario above would
> > have still failed, since the minimum version was 0.9.7 on your build
> > host.
>
> I'm not talking about meeting the minimum required by the ebuild, I'm talking about
> the minimum that were installed at the time of the emerge.
>
> > Well, I sincerely hope that you do not file such a bug, as it would
> > royally screw over the one team in Gentoo that *does* consistently use
> > our binary package support.
>
> I don't plan on filing the bug, but if it was an optional emerge option to use the
> actual version deps vs. the DEPEND of the ebuild, it wouldn't affect you would it?

If it were optional, it wouldn't affect us.  I'd have no issue with some
kind of optional support for this sort of thing.

> > I would definitely like to see the support improved, but not at the
> > expense of doing very stupid things like locking to specific
> > versions/revisions of packages.  No offense, but that screams of RPM
> > hell.
>
> I'm not trying to lock to any specific version.  I'm trying to reproduce on machine
> 2 the same state of packages that package A was compiled against on machine 1.  And
> even make it optional to do so, via an emerge flag.

This is likely usually done by controlling the binrepo.  At least,
that's how I do it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer