| 1 |
> Portage really needs to know this anyway to be able to sort out possible |
| 2 |
> breakage when things are upgraded. Sure, everything can be scanned but that |
| 3 |
> is very time-consuming and thus a PITA for the end-user. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Remember that the packages, once installed, are always binary and any change |
| 6 |
> to versions are just as likely to cause breakage within the installed system |
| 7 |
> regardless of how the new packages are installed. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Regards, |
| 10 |
> Jason Stubbs |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This just as good a time as any time to bring this up: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The portage tree is getting larger and there is already talk about |
| 15 |
making portage support download on demand... or something like that. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Why not express the dependency as an RDF graph? A dependency statement |
| 18 |
would be a complete uri. This would also remove the need to maintain a |
| 19 |
single package namespace. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-John |
Archives