| 1 |
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 01:33, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later |
| 6 |
> and it would be good if Portage catches it, instead spitting out a weird |
| 7 |
> message, leaving the root of the issue in the dark. Should be also simple |
| 8 |
> to write a test case. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each |
| 11 |
> > revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and |
| 12 |
> > ~ and < and <= dependencies entirely. Which is a good thing, since |
| 13 |
> > those atoms make dependency resolution a general-case unsolvable |
| 14 |
> > problem. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The problem is not the SLOT change, but to build "foo" depending on "bar" |
| 17 |
> against KDE X, while bar is built against KDE Y. "foo" and "bar" support |
| 18 |
> all slotted KDE versions, but they need to be build against the same one. |
| 19 |
> You simply cannot express this via slot dependencies, so this feature is |
| 20 |
> useless for KDE packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yes, this needs more sophisticated ebuild syntax and handling. In general one |
| 23 |
must support dependent dependencies for this. This requires many features |
| 24 |
portage doesn't offer yet. A.o. recording the actual versions that satisfied |
| 25 |
a dependency at compile time. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Paul |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 32 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 33 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives