| 1 |
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:25:31 -0800 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Sometimes a package has to depend on a specific version of a |
| 6 |
> > slotted package being the "active" one to build correctly, like in |
| 7 |
> > the current "tr1" discussion on -dev [1] or with packages that |
| 8 |
> > depend on the running kernel. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> tr1 is partially addressed via addition of a 'binding' modifier for |
| 11 |
> rdeps, to state that ||() deps are locked down after compilation. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And how would that solve the actual issue of expressing "I need /usr/bin/gcc to run gcc-4.1 and not gcc-3.4"? |
| 14 |
The lockdown of || deps is a completely separate issue, unless I'm missing something. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > The idea is to add a special category (let's call it "active" for |
| 17 |
> > now) that has the following properties: |
| 18 |
> > - this category doesn't exist in portdir or vdb (= no ebuilds) |
| 19 |
> > - when portage ($pkgmanager) encounters a "active/foo" atom in a |
| 20 |
> > dependency string it executes some special code (e.g. |
| 21 |
> > "$PORTDIR/scripts/active-check/foo =active/foo-1") to determine if |
| 22 |
> > that atom is satisfied |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Non deterministic resolution; previous steps in the graph can cause |
| 25 |
> that value to flip to a different setting by the time the 'dep' is |
| 26 |
> encountered. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ok, that's a problem, though for the use cases at hand (gcc and kernel) it would be mostly irrelevant. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> That's ignoring the kick in the nads usage of this will due to |
| 31 |
> resolution... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Neglectable IMO, it's not such a common use case anyway, and I don't think I have to compare it to the current "solution" (die in setup or compile). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > (and yes, this kinda goes with multi-repo/multi-format support) |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Don't really see how this enables multiple standalone repos in any |
| 38 |
> sane way, so that one requires justification... |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Where did I say anything about enabling? It would need more or less a separate repository (dbapi) instance, so it would require such support. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Marius |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives