| 1 |
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 22:45, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:00, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and |
| 4 |
> > then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without |
| 5 |
> > rebuilding the others will break digikam. I can't see how it's directly |
| 6 |
> > represented in the metadata unless you want to overload the meaning of |
| 7 |
> > SLOT. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It's not possible to represent that via dependencies. What is needed is |
| 10 |
> some sort of introspection which relevant ebuild is built against which KDE |
| 11 |
> version and if those _installed_ ebuild:kdever combinations match the one |
| 12 |
> the _actual_ ebuild to emerge. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Do you mind reading and replying to the second paragraph (which happens to be |
| 15 |
the only new information I brought to this thread). Underlining words to |
| 16 |
emphasize a point to me that I've opened by agreeing is really not necessary. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> But you're right about the overloading of the meaning of slots, because |
| 19 |
> that's happening right now. Slots are used to install several versions of a |
| 20 |
> package side by side. The idea Ciaranm and Brian are proposing to lock |
| 21 |
> ebuilds depending on slotted packages down to a single slot is the |
| 22 |
> redefinition. And once again: This doesn't match reality. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You've misunderstand what is meant by "locking ebuild dependencies". I gave |
| 25 |
you a definition in my second paragraph. Please have a re-read. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives