| 1 |
Am 23.11.2014 um 18:33 schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:31:45PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> am I the only one who thinks that this way leads to madness? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Version conflicts are bad enough. |
| 7 |
> First, version conflicts have their roots in the support for versions of |
| 8 |
> libraries in softwares. This is the best place to fix that when |
| 9 |
> possible. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> When it comes to ebuilds maintainers, version conflicts are about all |
| 12 |
> about DECLARATIONS. If software A need Y-v1..12, we should have a way |
| 13 |
> for the maintainers to declare that A relies on Y-v1..12 and let the |
| 14 |
> dependency softwares to the hard job and admin/users handle them the way |
| 15 |
> they want. |
| 16 |
> Today, this is badly managed with implicit expectations everywhere. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Also, there are ways to overcome version conflicts. Slots are one of |
| 19 |
> them. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> No multiply that with a bunch of |
| 22 |
>> overlays, all having their own libXY with just some tiny, tiny |
| 23 |
>> differences, and another bunch of overlays who want libXY from certain |
| 24 |
>> others.... |
| 25 |
> That's a reason why I said that overlays are a poor kind of pointers. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> For overlay maintainers today, if the main portage tree does not offer |
| 28 |
> what they expect, the only option they have is to rewrite their own |
| 29 |
> "static" dependency tree with their own ebuilds. That sucks. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Portage should support a way to expose ALL the conditions for a software |
| 32 |
> to work and update installed libraries to match the requirements. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
and you want portage to finish on this site of eternity when looking for |
| 36 |
dependency resolution? |
Archives