| 1 |
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:04:22 -0700 |
| 2 |
Michael M Nazaroff <naz@×××××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I trying to figure out whats wrong with the libgd-1.8.3-r2.ebuild. I've |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> submitted a patch to make it work on probably most peoples machines. |
| 7 |
But |
| 8 |
> orginally the syntax was ~media-libs/freetype-1.3.1 in the ebuild, which |
| 9 |
if |
| 10 |
> you have freetype-2.0.1 installed won't pulll down freetype-1.3.1 even |
| 11 |
though |
| 12 |
> they are diffirent libs...is this a bug ? I've tried the syntax |
| 13 |
> ~media-libs/freetype-1 and ~/media-libs/freetype-1.3 as recommended by |
| 14 |
> Azarah. I've check this problem on someone else machines and it's |
| 15 |
consistant |
| 16 |
> with mine. The library libgd-1.8.3 won't build because it won't pull |
| 17 |
down |
| 18 |
> freetype-1.3.1 before hand to build against. My fix for it simply |
| 19 |
consisted |
| 20 |
> of changing ~media-libs/freetype-1.3.1 to =media-libs/freetype-1.3.1-r3 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The reason you have not got a clear answer to this problem, is that it is |
| 23 |
a bit tricky, and we are working on getting Portage to handle it |
| 24 |
gracefully. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
For all of this to work seamlessly in the end, we will have to allow |
| 27 |
installation of both freetype-1.3.x and 2.0.x; it might be that all 1.x |
| 28 |
are interchangeable and all 2.x are interchangeable, or it might be that |
| 29 |
only 1.3.x are interchangeable. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
There is also a very nasty problem here that pops up in some of our |
| 32 |
packages (kissme, openoffice): |
| 33 |
foo-1.0 depends on bar-1.0.1, cannot build with any other bar version |
| 34 |
baz-1.0 depends on bar-1.0.2, cannot build with any other bar version |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
bar-1.0.1 and bar-1.0.2 cannot be installed at the same time. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
For instance, openoffice will only work with stlport 4.0. stlport 4.5 (the |
| 39 |
most recent) cannot coexist (easily) with 4.0. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
We really would like to handle this in the general case. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
For now we've more or less said that we want to allow libraries to be |
| 44 |
installed with multiple (minor) versions; say libfoo-1.3 and libfoo-1.2 |
| 45 |
can coexist, but |
| 46 |
libfoo-1.3.1 and libfoo-1.3.2 cannot. There is no reason why we should |
| 47 |
build that restriction into Portage itself. We can very well leave up to |
| 48 |
the ebuild developer whether his libfoo-1.3.1 and libfoo-1.3.2 should be |
| 49 |
able to coexist. |
| 50 |
The point is that we are working on a mechanism for the ebuild developer |
| 51 |
to tell which versions of his packages are interchangeable and which |
| 52 |
aren't. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Regards, |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Karl T |
Archives