| 1 |
Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Steve Long wrote: |
| 4 |
>> | How serious an issue is it in terms of deps on sys pkgs? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Very. It means we can't realistically handle packages that, by using |
| 7 |
>> autotools, depend upon the fifty odd system packages that are used by |
| 8 |
>> autotools-generated code. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> | > | > DEPEND="virtual/c-toolchain" would indeed be nice, but it's a |
| 11 |
>> | > | > rather large change... |
| 12 |
>> | > | > |
| 13 |
>> | > | How so? Isn't it simply a new meta? |
| 14 |
>> | > |
| 15 |
>> | > And an entire tree to update before it becomes meaningful. |
| 16 |
>> | > |
| 17 |
>> | Sure, but the changes can propagate thru as people update their |
| 18 |
>> | ebuilds, no? |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> The tricky part then is figuring out whether something doesn't dep upon |
| 21 |
>> c-compiler because it doesn't need one or because the ebuilds haven't |
| 22 |
>> been updated. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> I'm out of my depth here- I can't see where that would be a problem? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Er, his point being that if you don't do the upgrade all at once, you |
| 28 |
have two classes of package. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
1. Packages that don't require C-compiler |
| 31 |
2. Packages that don't yet depend upon C-compiler |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
When doing the upgrade over a period of time the two classes of package |
| 34 |
become indistinguishable. Does Foo not need a C compiler, or has it |
| 35 |
just not gotten updated yet, it's impossible to tell without looking, so |
| 36 |
it's very difficult for people to report 'problem packages' because they |
| 37 |
have to unpack and examine the package every time (at worst). |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives