| 1 |
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 19:04:55 +0100, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> thank you _very_ much for the hints. That is far more easier than I |
| 4 |
> exspected to be allowed to believe ;). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
No it's not. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> One thing remains: |
| 9 |
> I found no way to 'provide' a package without a versioning. Is it |
| 10 |
> possible ? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> And: |
| 13 |
> Let package 'C' depend on package 'B' which depends on package 'A'. |
| 14 |
> C is installed. |
| 15 |
> B is in entry in package.provided and installed from external sources. |
| 16 |
> A is installed. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Now I ran |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> emerge --depclean -vp |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> and it suggests to remove C. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
See? Trying to fool and work around portage is always going to come back |
| 25 |
and bite you. Either you trust it to look after your system or you do |
| 26 |
not. Using package.provided is a kludge which *will* raise all sorts of |
| 27 |
dependency and versioning issues at the most inconvenient time. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
There is an ebuild for the version you want in an overlay, just use it |
| 30 |
and let portage work as it is supposed to. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I just took an IQ test. The results were negative. |
Archives