| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:05:22 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 1/16/11 2:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Second, when performing updates, Paludis also rewrites dependencies |
| 5 |
> > of installed packages to use the names. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This seems to imply that portage behaves differently. Should we update |
| 8 |
> PMS when we determine what's the correct behavior? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Last time I looked, Portage simply left the old dependencies lying |
| 11 |
around, and then silently ignored them most but not all of the time. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
PMS has very little to say about how to deal with installed stuff, and |
| 14 |
specifies only the format of the updates file, not how it is to be |
| 15 |
handled. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's almost certainly a good thing, since for historical reasons |
| 18 |
Portage has some highly perverse behaviour when it comes to packages |
| 19 |
where you've got the same version both installed and available in a |
| 20 |
repository or overlay (and different Portage versions are perverse to |
| 21 |
different extents on that). Requiring emulation of early Portage design |
| 22 |
mistakes would just stop Portage from gradually fixing things over |
| 23 |
time as has been happening up to now. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives