Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough?
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:47:49
Message-Id: 51191297.6000703@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] libusb-compat preference in virtual/libusb:0 not strong enough? by Maxim Kammerer
1 On 02/11/2013 07:42 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
2 > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
3 >>> net-libs/libpcap-1.3.0-r1 (canusb ? virtual/libusb)
4 >>
5 >> This one has no slotted dependency. Does that matter? In any case it
6 >> doesn't seem completely correct, since the two APIs are not
7 >> compatible.
8 >
9 > It doesn't matter in this case, because canusb is disabled anyway. The
10 > real dependencies are:
11 >
12 > app-crypt/ccid-1.4.8 (usb ? virtual/libusb:1)
13 > dev-libs/libusb-compat-0.1.4 (virtual/libusb:1)
14 > dev-libs/openobex-1.5 (usb ? virtual/libusb:0)
15 > media-libs/libmtp-1.1.5 (virtual/libusb:1)
16 > net-wireless/bluez-4.101-r5 (usb ? virtual/libusb:0)
17 > sys-apps/usb_modeswitch-1.2.5_p20121109 (virtual/libusb:0)
18 > sys-apps/usbutils-006 (virtual/libusb:1)
19 > virtual/libusb-0 (>=dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r7:0)
20 > virtual/libusb-1 (>=dev-libs/libusb-1.0.9:1)
21 >
22 >>> Any idea on what's going on? BFS instead of DFS search when
23 >>> satisfying "||"?
24 >>
25 >> Seems a good explanation.. Can you try swapping the two in the virtual?
26 >
27 > BFS and DFS both work left-to-right, but in absence of both
28 > dev-libs/libusb:0 or :1, the path via libusb-compat to
29 > dev-libs/libusb:1 is longer than the immediate path to
30 > dev-libs/libusb:0. I think libusb-compat was selected correctly
31 > previously (a few months ago), so perhaps and update in portage caused
32 > the issue. On the other hand, this is just a hypothesis.
33
34 There has been no change in the portage behavior. Since libusb-compat is
35 on the left, it's supposed to be preferred.
36 --
37 Thanks,
38 Zac