| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 07:12:20AM +0200, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> This looks really great :-). |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> One note: what about conflicting/incompatible packages? Will/should we have a |
| 7 |
> syntax for saying, this package must not be installed? |
| 8 |
> Is that what happens when I say !foo[...] (as distinct from foo[!...])? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I am working on that problem just now. I do not really want the ebuilds to |
| 11 |
be the (only?) place to specify that. Reason is as follows: |
| 12 |
1) We add package foo-1.0 on Monday |
| 13 |
2) We add package bar-1.0 on Tuesday, which we know conflicts with foo. |
| 14 |
At this point, we will have to update all foo ebuilds to tell Portage |
| 15 |
that foo cannot coexist with bar. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think we should have packages.conflict or somesuch alongside |
| 18 |
packages.mask, and that all specification of conflicts should be handled |
| 19 |
there. Otherwise, Portage would have to parse *all* ebuilds whenever it |
| 20 |
tried to calculate dependencies (or all conflicts would have to be updated |
| 21 |
in all mutually conflicting ebuilds whenever a new ebuild enters the tree, |
| 22 |
and that is butt ugly). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Kind regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Karl T |
Archives