| 1 |
On Monday 11 February 2008 12:50:39 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND |
| 5 |
> > version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :) |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but |
| 8 |
> > I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible." |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :) |
| 11 |
> > If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for |
| 12 |
> > noise and please point me there :) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's |
| 15 |
> not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have |
| 16 |
> the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and |
| 19 |
> add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't |
| 20 |
> looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they |
| 21 |
> encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> ~brian |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This should really be [possible|done] without introducing yet another ugly and |
| 26 |
very difficult to maintain update/* hack? |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives