1 |
Just ran across the following thread in the forums yesterday: |
2 |
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-626528.html |
3 |
|
4 |
Which raises an interesting point regarding merge order of runtime |
5 |
deps. IIRC we currently assume that it's ok to merge runtime deps after |
6 |
the depending package to resolve dep cycles for example, which is |
7 |
generally ok, except if a runtime dep is used in pkg_*. For |
8 |
ebuild-installs that can be worked around easily by using DEPEND (where |
9 |
order is strictly respected), but for binary packages that obviously |
10 |
doesn't work. |
11 |
This problem probably hasn't been recognized earlier as |
12 |
it requires several conditions to apply simultaneously (binary merge, |
13 |
circular rdeps, rdeps used in pkg_*, rdeps not installed |
14 |
previously) |
15 |
|
16 |
Assuming I haven't missed anything, I see threee options to deal with |
17 |
that problem: |
18 |
a) ignore it, as it only affects a small minority |
19 |
b) respect merge order for RDEPEND - will cause more unsolvable |
20 |
depgraphs, though telling people to use PDEPEND more often might reduce |
21 |
that problem |
22 |
c) add a new deptype for merge dependencies - looks like overkill to me |
23 |
|
24 |
Any other other ideas, comments, preferences? |
25 |
|
26 |
Marius |
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |