| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:09:31 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| I wonder if portage deals fine with subtle dependency |
| 4 |
| incompatibilities, when one package has foo[!bar] and another one |
| 5 |
| foo[bar] as dependency and spits out a reasonable error message to |
| 6 |
| apply mutual blockers. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
| > kde-libs/kde:3 |
| 11 |
| > ^^^ need any kde, with slotting enabled. |
| 12 |
| > |
| 13 |
| > kde-libs/kde:3,4 |
| 14 |
| > ^^^ need any kde, slotting 3 or 4. |
| 15 |
| > |
| 16 |
| > Combination? Not set in stone afaik, the implementation I have |
| 17 |
| > sitting in saviour doesn't care about the ordering however. |
| 18 |
| |
| 19 |
| This is the one I'm entirely not sure what it is good for. To me it |
| 20 |
| looks more like a workaround for missing dependency ranges, but it |
| 21 |
| won't solve any issue for KDE related packages. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each |
| 24 |
revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and |
| 25 |
~ and < and <= dependencies entirely. Which is a good thing, since |
| 26 |
those atoms make dependency resolution a general-case unsolvable |
| 27 |
problem. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
| As a general remark I'd like to know if and how this enhanced |
| 30 |
| dependency syntax is ordered. :[], []: or is both allowed!? What if |
| 31 |
| we find out, that we need to consider another factor, later? :[]<>? |
| 32 |
| Wouldn't it be better to have a extensible scheme, like e.g. |
| 33 |
| $category/$ebuild[use:foo,!bar;slot:x,y] ? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
The existing syntax is just as extensible. Up the EABI revision, and |
| 36 |
start adding new syntax as needed. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 40 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 41 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives