| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system |
| 6 |
>>> has changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a |
| 7 |
>>> need for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of |
| 8 |
>>> portage. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it |
| 11 |
>> SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> if (pkgmgr=portage) |
| 14 |
>> python in @system |
| 15 |
>> else |
| 16 |
>> python !in system |
| 17 |
>> end |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That's not particularly sane, because it addresses only one special case, |
| 21 |
> others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said some posts |
| 22 |
> ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for everything in @system and |
| 23 |
> their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK @system", buildsyspkg |
| 24 |
> has failed to do anything useful. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
That's what I am trying to say. Thanks. Being someone who only speaks |
| 30 |
English, I ain't very good at it. LOL It's the dependencies that is |
| 31 |
not working here. Portage has to have python to work so leaving that |
| 32 |
out is a bad idea. Ask the OP about that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Now can someone explain this problem to the devs so they can fix this? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dale |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
:-) :-) |
Archives