| 1 |
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 17:47:37 Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > Thank you for producing lots of circular dependencies |
| 3 |
> > > (ie. in the Xserver), which make maintenance complicated. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Lots? If you'd posted this yesterday, I would have been able to recall |
| 6 |
> > the last time I was hit with one. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> At least several. I didn't find an good solution for checking |
| 9 |
> the whole tree yet, so I yet know some. Good candidates are |
| 10 |
> where PDEPENDs occour. For example the Xserver. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
*What* are you talking about? PDEPENDs are packages that should be emerged |
| 13 |
*after* the package in question. That A depends on B to be emerged *after* A |
| 14 |
and B depends on A to be emerged *before* B does not produce a circular |
| 15 |
dependency! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The PDEPEND of xorg-server is a convenience for the user to only need to set |
| 18 |
VIDEO_CARDS and INPUT_DEVICES (or stick with the defaults) and have |
| 19 |
xorg-server pull in only the requested drivers after itself. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> If you want some package which pulls in an complete Xserver installation |
| 22 |
> *and* drivers (based on certain useflags), why not just an virtual |
| 23 |
> package ? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
virtuals are similar to meta packages (if you look at their contents) with one |
| 26 |
very important difference. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
virtuals provide a minimal functionality that other packages can depend on |
| 29 |
without caring about what provides it. meta packages are a convenience to the |
| 30 |
users that pulls in a bunch of packages and hence nothing is allowed to |
| 31 |
depend on them. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives