1 |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:01:13AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:29, Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > So... basically, your concern is with the resolver, not use/slot deps |
4 |
> > syntax. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I did not say that this would have anything to do with the syntax. Am I right |
7 |
> to extract from your words that we get rid of ~arch users complains about |
8 |
> up/downgrade cycles with Portage 2.1 as well, but have them confronted with a |
9 |
> proper error message!? :) |
10 |
|
11 |
Never said anything about 2.1 + resolver enhancements (no clue where |
12 |
that one came from). Merely commenting on your raised issues about |
13 |
use/slot deps. |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
> > > - The dependencies we have are always >=kde-libs/kde-x.y and when KDE 4 |
17 |
> > > is due, we can change to =kde-libs/kde-3.5* because everything else won't |
18 |
> > > be supported anymore. So unless I miss something, kde-libs/kde:X is |
19 |
> > > superfluous. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > Missing something /me thinks. |
22 |
> > shouldn't really be specifying >=kde-x.y; should be specifying the |
23 |
> > slotting. Do that, and you wouldn't have to go back and change it |
24 |
> > over to =kde-libs/kde-3.5* ; you just mark the new kde-4 as a |
25 |
> > different slot. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Of course slot dependencies are cleaner. Just that they don't address a |
28 |
> practical problem with ebuilds buildable against multiple slotted ebuilds of |
29 |
> one packages, but the need to have them, their dependencies and all other |
30 |
> ebuilds depending on the latter (ones [sp?]) built against one and the same |
31 |
> ebuild ( In reality a set of ebuilds, named KDE X.Y). |
32 |
|
33 |
That sounds more like a failure of the ebuild's dep/rdep |
34 |
specification, either that or your hinting at the need to lock down |
35 |
the rdep's an ebuild was built against. |
36 |
|
37 |
Either way, still not totally following your complaint, thus an actual |
38 |
example would help (easiest to assume I'm a moron, and start at that |
39 |
level of explanation). |
40 |
|
41 |
~harring |