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 :) |
18 |
|
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. |
22 |
|
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. |
27 |
|
28 |
~brian |