| 1 |
On 12/17/2010 06:13 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15:25 Fri 17 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Things get messier when you've got || ( a >b-2.1 ) and b-2.0 is |
| 4 |
>> installed and a is not. Should b be upgraded to 2.1, or should a be |
| 5 |
>> selected? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It depends ... see later. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> What about if you decide upon a early on, and then later on something |
| 10 |
>> hard-depends upon b? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Then you're collapsing the graph too early. =) |
| 13 |
> (speaking as an utter novice) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is the same kind of case as in bug 264434. We solved it in portage |
| 16 |
by putting || and virtual dependencies on stack, and delaying their |
| 17 |
evaluation until as late as possible. You may be able to dream up some |
| 18 |
corner cases where this approach doesn't help, but in practice it seems |
| 19 |
to help more often than not. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264434 |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Zac |
Archives