Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:01:14
Message-Id: 20110612140113.GA9265@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND by Zac Medico
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:13:35AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/12/2011 01:18 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Michał Górny wrote: > > > >> True. How about pkg_setup()? Shall we assume RDEPEND are there or > >> rely on @system only? > > > > IIUC, with Portage's breaking of dependency cycles there's no absolute > > guarantee that packages in RDEPEND will be available in pkg_*. > > It would be more accurate to say that it's guaranteed except for cases > in which circular dependencies make it impossible to guarantee.
Those instances shouldn't be just dropped by the manager; a --force-break-ebuild-rules option for those cases is one thing, same for attempting multiple merge/replace to break a use cycle. But if it just says "meh" to a cycle... that's wrong. Under what scenarios will it pull that? ~brian