| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-17-11 at 14:39 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> I want to know what portage is going to be doing before it |
| 3 |
> does it. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Right (I don't think that anyone disagrees with you here). The thing |
| 6 |
[that this thread is] trying to figure out, though, is this: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I need to be able to express, in the dependencies of an ebuild, that I |
| 9 |
require gcc to have been compiled with a certain USE flag, a capability |
| 10 |
that portage doesn't [yet] provide. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The consensus of the best thing to do as an immediate work around is to |
| 13 |
write some code early on in your ebuild which evaluates whether or not |
| 14 |
the dependency was actually built under the needed USE conditions, and |
| 15 |
to fail with a message informing what the user must do about it if they |
| 16 |
choose to proceed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The problem with that of course is that you may well end up building a |
| 19 |
huge number of dependencies before you get to your ebuild which will |
| 20 |
then have to fail out to the user saying "sorry, you need to go and |
| 21 |
rebuild gcc with this USE flag set". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So that's where we're at. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
AfC |
| 26 |
Atlanta |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Andrew Frederick Cowie |
| 30 |
Principal |
| 31 |
Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Helping you succeed at flawlessly executing Massive |
| 34 |
Changes and Upgrades to your Mission Critical Systems |
| 35 |
http://www.operationaldynamics.com/services/procedures/ |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Sydney New York Toronto London |
Archives