1 |
Hi, Alan. |
2 |
|
3 |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:57:05PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
> > Hmm. Recompiling the same source code produces a different binary? |
6 |
|
7 |
> Not quite: |
8 |
|
9 |
> Rebuilding the same sources against different headers produces a |
10 |
> different binary. |
11 |
|
12 |
> > Presumably, it uses C macros in a .h file which is part of xorg. Or |
13 |
> > something like that. |
14 |
|
15 |
> > So evdev depends on xorg. Isn't there a way of expressing this in |
16 |
> > evdev's ebuild? Something like the DEPEND variable? |
17 |
|
18 |
> It's already there, but doesn't help as the update trigger never |
19 |
> happens. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Actually, you have the depend the wrong way round - evdev depends on |
22 |
> xorg-server; to have the driver and for it to be useful, the xorg- |
23 |
> server must be present, otherwise there is nothing for the drivers to |
24 |
> build against. |
25 |
|
26 |
> You want to force a rebuild that is the opposite of the DEPEND, but |
27 |
> portage does not support that (it's a circular dependency). It will |
28 |
> also not rebuild the driver as part of a regular update as there is not |
29 |
> a new version of the driver, hence according to normal portage logic |
30 |
> there is no need to do so. |
31 |
|
32 |
> Make sense? |
33 |
|
34 |
I think so - I've always had problems understanding dependencies. What I |
35 |
want is one of these "nice to have"s which would take an inordinate |
36 |
amount of work, if it's even possible. |
37 |
|
38 |
In the meantime, I'll carry on not starting Gnome at boot-up. Despite |
39 |
the existence of gentoo=nox, I feel safer starting it manually. It's a |
40 |
strange, depressing feeling when the only input device which works is the |
41 |
reset button - thank goodness that isn't handled by evdev. ;-) |
42 |
|
43 |
> -- |
44 |
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
45 |
|
46 |
-- |
47 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |