From: | Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> | ||
Cc: | "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 10:07:15 | ||
Message-Id: | 4DF4833F.7000401@gentoo.org | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND by Ulrich Mueller |
1 | On 06/12/2011 01:18 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 | >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Micha³ Górny wrote: |
3 | > |
4 | >> True. How about pkg_setup()? Shall we assume RDEPEND are there or |
5 | >> rely on @system only? |
6 | > |
7 | > IIUC, with Portage's breaking of dependency cycles there's no absolute |
8 | > guarantee that packages in RDEPEND will be available in pkg_*. |
9 | |
10 | It would be more accurate to say that it's guaranteed except for cases |
11 | in which circular dependencies make it impossible to guarantee. |
12 | -- |
13 | Thanks, |
14 | Zac |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND | "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o> |
Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND | Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |