Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: John Nilsson <john@×××××××.nu>
To: Spider <spider@g.o>, gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA question wrg. GRP
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 03:48:16
Message-Id: 1075952902.22828.4.camel@newkid.milsson.nu
1 On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 03:55, Spider wrote:
2 > begin quote
3 > On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 03:16:15 +0100
4 > John Nilsson <john@×××××××.nu> wrote:
5 >
6 > > If they are linked agains 0.9.7 should they not rdepend on 0.9.7 ?
7 > >
8 > > I admit I have no clue as how GRP works. But this is what I gather: by
9 > > using the -k you tell portage to just unpack allready compiled
10 > > packages for the ebuild it's trying to install.
11 >
12 > the GRP works just as normal packages do, the metadata is exactly the
13 > same as in an installed system. Thats where the problem lies in a case
14 > like this.
15
16 Yeah, that was what I was thinking.
17
18 >
19 >
20 > > Why not just have a package-grp-x.x.x.ebuild that has a binary package
21 > > as source, and just skips the compile step? This ebuild should have
22 > > the correct RDEPEND...
23 > >
24 >
25 > Erm? that sort of doesn't make sense.. a grp contains the ebuild + the
26 > files that would be merged into the system, thereby skipping the
27 > "download unpack compile install" parts, but performing the other parts
28 > from the ebuild, maintaining the RDEPEND only.
29
30 Poit beeing that a seperate ebuild would allow RDEPEND to be set to the
31 actual package it was compiled against (=package-x.x.x) without messing
32 with the more general case ebiulds and killing the requirement to
33 engineer a special case handling in portage.
34
35 >
36 > btw, why wasn't this reply sent to the list?
37 Sorry, missed the "reply all"-button.
38
39 > //Spider
40 >
41 >
42
43 -John

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature