| 1 |
On Saturday 26 Nov 2005 10:12 pm, Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 2 |
> ..... OK, I understand this to some extent (meaning I get it that |
| 3 |
> Portage is not going to be revised in this way), but I must question |
| 4 |
> that last statement, "it seems desirable to compile against the latest |
| 5 |
> kernel that is installed." |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The latest kernel that is *installed* (as opposed to the latest kernel |
| 8 |
> whose source is emerged, regardless of whether it's configured, |
| 9 |
> compiled, or installed) is the one I'm booted into, and while I |
| 10 |
> presumably intend/want to upgrade to the newly emerged kernel at |
| 11 |
> some reasonably soon point, I don't necessarily want to do it *right |
| 12 |
> that minute*, nor am I necessarily going to avoid rebooting until such |
| 13 |
> time as I have installed the upgraded kernel. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
I don't know how portage designing works but what you are saying can probably |
| 16 |
never happen. What you want is that give "kernel" a special status and leave |
| 17 |
it out of dependency checking. How can that happen? If you follow the normal |
| 18 |
dependency checking then portage is working exactly how it should. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If we go by the way you want things to work then just imagine this scenario. |
| 21 |
Program abc depends on xyz. You have abc-1.0.0 as well as xyz-1.0.0 installed |
| 22 |
and configured on your system. Today both programs have been updated to |
| 23 |
versions 1.0.1 and you do emrge -uDNv world. What would be the desired action |
| 24 |
that portage should perform? The desired action would be to first update |
| 25 |
xyz-1.0.0 to xyz-1.0.1 and then build abc-1.0.1 against the newly installed |
| 26 |
libraries. What you want is that abc-1.0.1 should install against. xyz-1.0.0 |
| 27 |
and then you will revdep-rebuild later to build abc once again but this time |
| 28 |
against the newer xyz-1.0.1. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
imho that is certainly not the way things should work. Why not build with |
| 31 |
latest libraries when you already have them? To do what you want, all kernel |
| 32 |
packages will have to be left alone from dependency tracking and I don't know |
| 33 |
whether it is possible or not. Just my 2 cents. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Abhay |
Archives