| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know |
| 12 |
>>>> how to address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be |
| 13 |
>>>> updated to contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need |
| 14 |
>>>> RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend. |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>> Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. |
| 18 |
>>> I though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>> Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one |
| 23 |
>> of the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world updates |
| 27 |
> (there are still many cases where it will be included), but that's not |
| 28 |
> the only available operation in portage. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Marius |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a machine |
| 33 |
that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want to upgrade |
| 34 |
either of those packages to the latest ~arch. |
Archives