| 1 |
On 08/17/2011 07:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:40:45 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Is the real issue that ebuild developers aren't using workarounds in |
| 5 |
>> order to overcome the shortcomings of some dependency resolvers? |
| 6 |
>> Really? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The real issue is that Portage has nearly as much unspecified voodoo |
| 9 |
> in its behaviour as a web browser. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If you think there are particular cases where resolution should be |
| 12 |
> smarter then the way to proceed is to introduce well-specified |
| 13 |
> metadata to handle it |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Agreed. Obviously, I'm in favor of introducing this metadata that you |
| 16 |
speak of. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> -- and, importantly, you should *not* implement |
| 19 |
> a dodgy workaround in the mean time. There shouldn't be any weird |
| 20 |
> magical difference in behaviour based upon package name, and if |
| 21 |
> something isn't done properly then it shouldn't be there at all. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's in the past now. Let's move forward with the introduction of the |
| 24 |
new metadata! |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives