From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Er4nY-0000nC-31 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:42:48 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBR2g6jG029177; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:42:06 GMT Received: from cubert.e-centre.net (morbo.e-centre.net [66.154.82.3]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBR2eIpC005318 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:40:18 GMT Received: from [10.3.1.19] (helo=barracuda2.stayonline.net) by cubert.e-centre.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Er4l8-0004Cd-38 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:40:18 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1135651217-23792-773-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.3.1.19:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (unknown [65.200.64.131]) by barracuda2.stayonline.net (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 99C33CC80A for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:40:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from nightcrawler ([172.16.1.202]) by et-pdx-2.site.stayonline.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBR2e45j003413 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:40:05 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:40:15 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support Message-ID: <20051227024015.GJ5809@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> References: <43A235AD.6030604@leetworks.com> <200512270301.20576.carlo@gentoo.org> <20051227021124.GH5809@nightcrawler.e-centre.net> <200512270332.09857.carlo@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="boAH8PqvUi1v1f55" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512270332.09857.carlo@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at stayonline.net X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.6644 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Archives-Salt: 6a9b43fa-b6fc-42f9-a53d-48b00190378c X-Archives-Hash: 6cdd31bbf08eabccd414444bd1f80844 --boAH8PqvUi1v1f55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:32:04AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:11, Brian Harring wrote: > > Either way, still not totally following your complaint, thus an actual > > example would help (easiest to assume I'm a moron, and start at that > > level of explanation). >=20 > O.k. >=20 > 1. You have KDE 3.4 and Digikam (version doesn't matter) installed > 2. You update to KDE 3.5=20 >=20 > What you now have is the following: KDE 3.5 works fine and Digikam as wel= l,=20 > just that it uses KDE 3.4 libs. But what happens: A Digikam update (or yo= u=20 > rebuild for whatever reason). You emerge it (against KDE 3.5), but its=20 > dependencies (libkipi, libkexif ) are still built against kdelibs 3.4. Th= e=20 > result is that compiling Digikam fails. You need to rebuild these=20 > dependencies and every other ebuild depending n those against KDE 3.5. An= d=20 > Portage should do that transparently. >=20 > For now I have written slot_rebuild() which detects the problem at least = and=20 > provides the user with the information what to do, but it's dead ugly. The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3D3.5- it should be=20 depending on libk* slot=3D3.5, also, no? As long as the information is represented dependency wise, portage=20 should be able to handle it fine. Just need to have that info there. If an ebuild dep/rdeps via || (), then we're getting into whether or=20 not portage should be filtering || () down to the selected atom... ~harring --boAH8PqvUi1v1f55 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDsKmPvdBxRoA3VU0RAuUcAKCaozn4mcigWULvi1ttuTPv6Vci1wCdE0o1 uJ0MUq0ro4WeR0p+KmzEAV4= =o/zv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --boAH8PqvUi1v1f55-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list