Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New PDEPEND behaviour.
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:22:17
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] New PDEPEND behaviour. by Brian Harring
1 On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Brian Harring wrote:
2 > I suggest you in the future check out what actually was changed, and
3 > do some testing- both the original poster, and yourself are missing
4 > what is occuring here
6 Uh, thanks, I never was fond of reading the code of Portage, so I took Piotr's
7 point as given.
9 > Note I said 'shift'. It tries to place it earlier in the graph, while
10 > *still* maintaining the constraints of kdnssd-avahi- namely the
11 > kdelibs dependency.
12 >
13 > Via that dep, kdnssd-avahi *requires* kdelibs to be installed first,
14 > and portage honors that- it just now tries to get kdnssd-avahi merged
15 > as soon as possible after kdelibs due to their PDEPEND relationship
16 > (try it if in doubt, it lineralizes it properly).
17 >
18 > The cases where it doesn't, are when the constraints are already
19 > satisfied- kdelibs already is merged, basically. There is a change in
20 > placement there, but considering the data involved, wouldn't label it
21 > a regression- same issue can, and does occur in multiple other ways.
23 That's fine.
25 > > The latter.
26 >
27 > Former. The ebuild manpage is a bit loose in it's description of what
28 > PDEPEND does.
30 Well, I should point out where I come from. There is no need to install a pure
31 runtime dependency before the ebuild pulling it in. If pure runtime
32 dependencies would be handled this way, there would be no need for PDEPEND at
33 all. I consider the current way Portage handles pure runtime dependencies
34 (causing the need for the artificial PDEPEND in the first place) as
35 conceptually broken.
38 Carsten


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] New PDEPEND behaviour. Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o>