| 1 |
On 06/07/13 14:37, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 2 |
> 07.06.2013 15:26, vivo75@×××××.com пишет: |
| 3 |
>> Hi everybody, |
| 4 |
>> sometimes a package depend from another with a particular USE flag |
| 5 |
>> turned on, example llvm-3.2 on dev-libs/udis86 +pic |
| 6 |
>> Sometimes a new ebuild can change IUSE, indeed udis86-1.7-r1 removed pic |
| 7 |
>> use which was present in 1.7-r0. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> This RFC is to understend what we (you actually) want the packages |
| 10 |
>> manager to do in this situation, as I see it there are mainly two options. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> 1) when consider the dependency _always_ satisfied, if the requested USE |
| 13 |
>> is not in IUSE. |
| 14 |
>> this will make user life easier, since portage now barf conflicts but |
| 15 |
>> the "wrong" dependency goes unnoticed and nobody will clean the ebuilds. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> 2) error out always, both if requested USE flag should have been enabled |
| 18 |
>> or not, since it's a bug and should be fixed. |
| 19 |
>> emerge -uDavNt will not that easy but the tree is cleaner as a |
| 20 |
>> consequence, also the developer are forced^Wencouraged to look at the |
| 21 |
>> reason the USE flag disappeared analizing if their package will continue |
| 22 |
>> to work. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> finally the depend in llvm ebuild has this form: |
| 25 |
>> DEPEND="udis86? ( dev-libs/udis86[pic(+)] )" |
| 26 |
>> and the diff between udis86 ebuilds is like this: |
| 27 |
>> -IUSE="pic test" |
| 28 |
>> +IUSE="test" |
| 29 |
> What's the question here? How to handle this? Read about USEDEP_DEFAULTS |
| 30 |
> in PMS. |
| 31 |
yes "how to handle this", thanks for the pointer to USE-DEP-DEFAULTS, |
| 32 |
Ciaranm you too |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> If you see broken packages(somebody forgot to change dependency) - file |
| 35 |
> a bug about it. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
According to the now readed fine manual, the ebuilds seem to be right, |
| 38 |
llvm is EAPI=5, udis86-1.7-r1 is EAPI=4 and the previous one is EAPI=3, |
| 39 |
dependency should be considered enabled if absent. |
| 40 |
So the bug would be in portage, but the overzealous dep resolution seem |
| 41 |
to arise only with "--with-bdeps=y" so I'm not opening it a bug. |
Archives