| 1 |
On Friday 23 June 2006 17:51, Jure Varlec wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thank you for replying. I see now that I should clarify further what is |
| 3 |
> bothering me, as you didn't quite see my point. I guess it got lost in the |
| 4 |
> noise. No more stories then :) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It was not lost. Just questioned... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
[SNIP] |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Gentoolkit is 0.2.2. After equery, I took a look at the ebuild. |
| 11 |
> As for the eclasses, I must admit I'm still not too comfortable with them, |
| 12 |
> which is what I was actually referring to when I said I need to understand |
| 13 |
> portage better. It's a shame really considering that I've been using gentoo |
| 14 |
> for two-and-a-half years. I need to get spanked ;) . But as far as I |
| 15 |
> understand it (and from what I can see looking at the eclasses) they are |
| 16 |
> merely collections of useful shell functions which devs can use when |
| 17 |
> writing ebuilds. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
ebuilds inherit dependencies and USE flags from the eclasses too. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
[SNIP] |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> As you can see, it does not inherit anything, and does not depend on |
| 24 |
> anything gnomish. However, when I checked with equery, it definitely |
| 25 |
> depended on something which I didn't need/want (sorry, I can't remember |
| 26 |
> what it was, probably gconf or some such), although the ebuild specifies no |
| 27 |
> such dependency, not even indirectly (through gtk+ etc.) After I removed |
| 28 |
> the unwanted dep and remerged gqview, it did not pull the removed |
| 29 |
> "dependency" back in, and no longer depends on it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Hard to comment on since you don't remember.. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> The same applies for dependencies which were disabled through use flags, |
| 34 |
> such |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> as this snip (from openoffice): |
| 37 |
> > gnome? ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2.4 |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > >=gnome-base/gnome-vfs-2.6 |
| 40 |
> > >=gnome-base/gconf-2.0 ) |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> In this case, It depended on gnome-vfs and gconf, even when the gnome USE |
| 43 |
> flag was disabled. After I removed the offending packages and recompiled |
| 44 |
> openoffice, the dependecy is gone. |
| 45 |
> Note: you might remember I wrote that oo.org used to be compiled with |
| 46 |
> USE="eds", which pulls these in along with other stuff indirectly through |
| 47 |
> gnome-extra/evolution-data-server. It was the reason these libs were |
| 48 |
> installed in the first place. The dependency problem I'm describing, |
| 49 |
> however, is independent from that and was present even after I recompiled |
| 50 |
> oo.org without "eds". |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I do have openoffice and gnome-vfs too. equery depends gnome-vfs does report |
| 53 |
openoffice for me despite the fact that the gnome use flag is disabled. So I |
| 54 |
tried removing gnome-vfs from /var/db/pkg/app-office/openoffice*/{R,}DEPEND. |
| 55 |
That stopped equery from showing openoffice with equery depends gnome-vfs. I |
| 56 |
also tried removing gnome-vfs and running revdep-rebuild -p. This did not |
| 57 |
report any broken dependencies from openoffice. So I think it is very |
| 58 |
possible that there are still bugs in equery... I don't know though how |
| 59 |
equery works though so it's just a guess. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
[SNIP] |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> *Sigh* |
| 64 |
> I hope I'm missing something here. Because if these are bugs, there's quite |
| 65 |
> a few. Sadly, I removed all the temporary lists of packages I removed and |
| 66 |
> rebuilt, so I have nothing to report now. Stupid me. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
While I think those are bugs they are really minor. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives