| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:57, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Reasoning on checking all system atoms is that other groups are just as |
| 4 |
> > likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining that with how |
| 5 |
> > rarely versions are actually updated for system packages, it shouldn't |
| 6 |
> > cause any more bother to users than it needs to. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Well, that approach has one major problem: it won't help for profile |
| 9 |
> changes (like the mess with the cascaded profiles). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Making the tree DEPEND on a specific portage version won't help either. If the |
| 12 |
user doesn't have a profile, they have no ARCH or other important things |
| 13 |
which means they can't use emerge. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Also I don't see what "system" has to do with handling the tree itself, and |
| 16 |
> for anything else people can add dependencies, or am I missing something |
| 17 |
> here? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Doing it via system is more generic with no loss in functionality that I can |
| 20 |
see. As I said above, the only time that not doing it in system would be |
| 21 |
useful is if system itself is not available but profile problems imply that |
| 22 |
one can't emerge anyway. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives