1 |
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:31:45PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> am I the only one who thinks that this way leads to madness? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Version conflicts are bad enough. |
6 |
|
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 |
|
26 |
That's a reason why I said that overlays are a poor kind of pointers. |
27 |
|
28 |
For overlay maintainers today, if the main portage tree does not offer |
29 |
what they expect, the only option they have is to rewrite their own |
30 |
"static" dependency tree with their own ebuilds. That sucks. |
31 |
|
32 |
Portage should support a way to expose ALL the conditions for a software |
33 |
to work and update installed libraries to match the requirements. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Nicolas Sebrecht |