| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:28:21 +0000
|
| 5 |
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> Nothing prevents us from using the above, which already produces the |
| 7 |
> same output as basic use dependencies, so users should be getting used |
| 8 |
> to it by now. It would be great if PMs could produce more detailed |
| 9 |
> warnings to the user, but that can wait (may have to wait?) for the |
| 10 |
> new solutions. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If it does, it's a bug in Portage.
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you've got foo[bar] installed, and the user tries to install
|
| 15 |
foo[-bar], and foo[bar] DEPENDs upon foo[bar], that has to be allowed as
|
| 16 |
a generalisation of handling || ( foo foo-bin ).
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Conversely, if foo isn't installed at all, then foo[bar] as a dependency
|
| 19 |
must not be met even if the user is installing foo[bar].
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Dependencies on self must match the previously installed package, not
|
| 22 |
the thing being installed at the time.
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- --
|
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkxJjn4ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG4UgCfQ09rlDbVEAAFDYHr4mQQJzjb
|
| 30 |
ke4AoIPCUwAOl38RHW6aUcAhwihxjEid
|
| 31 |
=4Wrl
|
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives