| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:32:04AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:11, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Either way, still not totally following your complaint, thus an actual |
| 4 |
> > example would help (easiest to assume I'm a moron, and start at that |
| 5 |
> > level of explanation). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> O.k. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 1. You have KDE 3.4 and Digikam (version doesn't matter) installed |
| 10 |
> 2. You update to KDE 3.5 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> What you now have is the following: KDE 3.5 works fine and Digikam as well, |
| 13 |
> just that it uses KDE 3.4 libs. But what happens: A Digikam update (or you |
| 14 |
> rebuild for whatever reason). You emerge it (against KDE 3.5), but its |
| 15 |
> dependencies (libkipi, libkexif ) are still built against kdelibs 3.4. The |
| 16 |
> result is that compiling Digikam fails. You need to rebuild these |
| 17 |
> dependencies and every other ebuild depending n those against KDE 3.5. And |
| 18 |
> Portage should do that transparently. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> For now I have written slot_rebuild() which detects the problem at least and |
| 21 |
> provides the user with the information what to do, but it's dead ugly. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3.5- it should be |
| 24 |
depending on libk* slot=3.5, also, no? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
As long as the information is represented dependency wise, portage |
| 27 |
should be able to handle it fine. Just need to have that info there. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If an ebuild dep/rdeps via || (), then we're getting into whether or |
| 30 |
not portage should be filtering || () down to the selected atom... |
| 31 |
~harring |
Archives