| 1 |
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:04:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Sometimes a package has to depend on a specific version of a slotted package being the "active" one to build correctly, like in the current "tr1" discussion on -dev [1] or with packages that depend on the running kernel. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Currently this isn't really possible, however I while ago I got an idea how to solve this. Keep in mind this is just a rough idea and I'm pretty sure some people can/will point out why it is a stupid idea, but anyway: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > The idea is to add a special category (let's call it "active" for now) that has the following properties: |
| 10 |
> > - this category doesn't exist in portdir or vdb (= no ebuilds) |
| 11 |
> > - when portage ($pkgmanager) encounters a "active/foo" atom in a dependency string it executes some special code (e.g. "$PORTDIR/scripts/active-check/foo =active/foo-1") to determine if that atom is satisfied |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > (and yes, this kinda goes with multi-repo/multi-format support) |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Marius |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> To work this would need code in the tools like gcc-config. Otherwise |
| 18 |
> people could easily break their systems without anything giving them a |
| 19 |
> notice. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Not sure I can follow. If we had such a check script for gcc why would it need additional code in gcc-config? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Marius |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives