Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:50:43
Message-Id: 20080211115039.GB12305@seldon
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only by Vlastimil Babka
1 On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
2 > Hi,
3 >
4 > reading comments on bug 209538, I've seen this dangerous thing from Zac:
5 >
6 > "Once these issues are solved it will be nice if we can rely exclusively
7 > on the dependencies from /var/db/pkg."
8 >
9 > Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND
10 > version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :)
11 >
12 > Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but
13 > I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible."
14 >
15 > So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :)
16 > If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for
17 > noise and please point me there :)
19 Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's
20 not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have
21 the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo.
23 Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and
24 add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't
25 looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they
26 encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however.
28 ~brian


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only Selckin <lists@×××××××.be>