| 1 |
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Пнд, 14/01/2008 в 02:10 +0200, Petteri Räty пишет: |
| 3 |
> > Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: |
| 4 |
> > > On Sunday 13 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> Peter Volkov kirjoitti: |
| 6 |
> > >>> Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge |
| 7 |
> > >>> libdts? |
| 8 |
> > >> |
| 9 |
> > >> Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to |
| 10 |
> > >> another. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > unless they had a block in place ... |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > When you move a package over an another the files don't change. So |
| 15 |
> > Portage thinks you have libdca installed but the files are from libdts. |
| 16 |
> > So every depending on libdca would have to have their atoms in such a |
| 17 |
> > way that doesn't match libdts existing versions. Please correct me if I |
| 18 |
> > am wrong. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Thank you, now I see. And if I understood correctly to fix atoms you |
| 21 |
> just have to add >=media-libs/libdca-0.0.5 into DEPEND of packages which |
| 22 |
> depend only on libdca. After this package move will work as it should. |
| 23 |
> Did I miss anything? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Mike, how blocks help here? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
if two packages provide the same binary and they blocked each other, a move |
| 28 |
would be doable as it would be impossible for the two packages to be |
| 29 |
installed simultaneously. but as Petteri points out, libdca/libdts dont |
| 30 |
provide the same SONAME so a package move wouldnt be possible. |
| 31 |
-mike |
Archives