| 1 |
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 22:10:19 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> In this particular case the approved PMS says "In the pkg phases, at |
| 4 |
> least one of the following conditions must be met: any command |
| 5 |
> provided by a packaged listed in DEPEND is available; any command |
| 6 |
> provided by a packaged listed in RDEPEND is available." |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yeah, that's a screwup that's been discussed at length. It shouldn't be |
| 9 |
giving you any guarantees at all for pkg_*, since RDEPEND-RDEPEND |
| 10 |
cycles need to be breakable (there are lots of them in the tree). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The fix is likely going to be an IDEPEND or something along those lines |
| 13 |
in the next EAPI. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives