| 1 |
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:29, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> So... basically, your concern is with the resolver, not use/slot deps |
| 3 |
> syntax. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I did not say that this would have anything to do with the syntax. Am I right |
| 6 |
to extract from your words that we get rid of ~arch users complains about |
| 7 |
up/downgrade cycles with Portage 2.1 as well, but have them confronted with a |
| 8 |
proper error message!? :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > - The dependencies we have are always >=kde-libs/kde-x.y and when KDE 4 |
| 11 |
> > is due, we can change to =kde-libs/kde-3.5* because everything else won't |
| 12 |
> > be supported anymore. So unless I miss something, kde-libs/kde:X is |
| 13 |
> > superfluous. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Missing something /me thinks. |
| 16 |
> shouldn't really be specifying >=kde-x.y; should be specifying the |
| 17 |
> slotting. Do that, and you wouldn't have to go back and change it |
| 18 |
> over to =kde-libs/kde-3.5* ; you just mark the new kde-4 as a |
| 19 |
> different slot. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Of course slot dependencies are cleaner. Just that they don't address a |
| 22 |
practical problem with ebuilds buildable against multiple slotted ebuilds of |
| 23 |
one packages, but the need to have them, their dependencies and all other |
| 24 |
ebuilds depending on the latter (ones [sp?]) built against one and the same |
| 25 |
ebuild ( In reality a set of ebuilds, named KDE X.Y). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Carsten |
Archives