1 |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:28:39 +0200 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> It's not quite clear what a "block on an ebuild" is, so let's clarify |
4 |
> the wording such that it agrees with portage behaviour. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Portage ignores self-blockers both in DEPEND and RDEPEND. |
7 |
|
8 |
Even strong blockers? |
9 |
|
10 |
Also, what happens for packages that can't be rebuilt once they're |
11 |
installed (e.g. because they screw up and use stuff on / if it's there)? |
12 |
We've got this weird situation where DEPEND=!!self would prevent you |
13 |
from upgrading or downgrading, but wouldn't stop you from rebuilding |
14 |
the exact same version. That doesn't seem right. |
15 |
|
16 |
It seems weird that we're mandating that a package manager should just |
17 |
outright ignore bits of dependency variables. Maybe it would be better |
18 |
to mark it as undefined as to whether or not the package manager |
19 |
honours such a block (and tell people not to do it), and then for the |
20 |
next EAPI figure out the logical meaning and specify that? |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |