| 1 |
On Friday 22 October 2004 22:11, John Nilsson wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Portage really needs to know this anyway to be able to sort out possible |
| 3 |
> > breakage when things are upgraded. Sure, everything can be scanned but |
| 4 |
> > that is very time-consuming and thus a PITA for the end-user. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Remember that the packages, once installed, are always binary and any |
| 7 |
> > change to versions are just as likely to cause breakage within the |
| 8 |
> > installed system regardless of how the new packages are installed. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This just as good a time as any time to bring this up: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The portage tree is getting larger and there is already talk about |
| 13 |
> making portage support download on demand... or something like that. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Why not express the dependency as an RDF graph? A dependency statement |
| 16 |
> would be a complete uri. This would also remove the need to maintain a |
| 17 |
> single package namespace. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I have no idea what you are talking about, but there are no problems with |
| 20 |
expressing the dependencies. The "problem" is figuring out the loosest set of |
| 21 |
specifations that still wont break anything. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives