1 |
On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: |
3 |
>> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild |
4 |
>> the dependent packages. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to |
7 |
>> be rebuilt can be listed in it. Only those packages that are installed |
8 |
>> would be built. The actual list of the packages to be rebuilt would be |
9 |
>> determined at dependency checking time. That way, the user can approve |
10 |
>> the rebuild of the packages. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to |
13 |
> implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working). |
14 |
|
15 |
This REBUILD variable is the first idea that pops into the head of |
16 |
anyone who's never worked on a dependency resolver before. It's |
17 |
backwards because it requires a package to have knowledge of *all* of |
18 |
its reverse dependencies, and it should not need to know about *any* of |
19 |
them. |
20 |
|
21 |
The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are |
22 |
very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with |
23 |
unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT |
24 |
variable as discussed here: |
25 |
|
26 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c18 |
27 |
|
28 |
It's really no more difficult to do than "SLOT operator" dependencies, |
29 |
it's more flexible, and we can do it in EAPI 5. |
30 |
-- |
31 |
Thanks, |
32 |
Zac |