Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:29:37
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency by Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
1 On Thursday 23 March 2006 21:38, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
2 > Ok... this discussion is missing my initial point that is how to
3 > provide binary dependency and avoid many crashes we have now with
4 > almost no effort.
5 >
6 > My initial proposal was to, after compile and before install is done,
7 > we should parse linker information and check for each library it
8 > depends, which package-version provides it and then mark the just
9 > compiled package runtime-dependent on them. If the dependency was not
10 > installed by portage, then issue a warning/error and take some action
11 > (ask user, abort or ignore)
13 Ok, my counterproposal:
15 Don't do it automatically. Use a heuristic by default (within the same
16 BINSLOT, higher or equal version). Allow ebuilds to override this.
18 Then we can do automatic verification as you propose.
20 My way allows binary dependencies to work more broadly. It also makes
21 things explicit. Changing detection to verification should catch the same
22 bugs. Not detecting does however mean that we can be better than a
23 fallible autodetection system.
25 And trust me, autodetection WILL fail for some packages.
27 > Cons:
28 > - it's not the final solution to the problem, as said, interfaces
29 > would be better... but interfaces would demand much more effort and
30 > not being automatically generated, would be async and probably
31 > incorrect at some point
33 Interfaces, while nice, would overcomplicate things. They are also not
34 needed as we have depend atoms.
36 Paul
38 --
39 Paul de Vrieze
40 Gentoo Developer
41 Mail: pauldv@g.o
42 Homepage:


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency tvali <qtvali@×××××.com>