[gentoo-dev] shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[gentoo-dev] shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

Hi Daniel, 

what you've done breaks runtime dependencies, if not for other packages so at 
least for KDE. Such a change should be announced on the gentoo-dev mailing 
list before you do it. Also a tracking bug to coordinate stabilization of new 
ebuild revisions will be needed, once the changed ebuilds go stable. Moreover 
you're not free to put a 200k patch into cvs, 20k is the accepted maximum.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 875 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 17:18 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Hi Daniel, 
> 
> what you've done breaks runtime dependencies, if not for other packages so at 
> least for KDE. Such a change should be announced on the gentoo-dev mailing 
> list before you do it. Also a tracking bug to coordinate stabilization of new 
> ebuild revisions will be needed, once the changed ebuilds go stable. Moreover 
> you're not free to put a 200k patch into cvs, 20k is the accepted maximum.
> 

It's not supposed to break runtime dependencies.  Everything that was
installed before is installed now, in the same location.  I therefore
didn't feel it should case problems and that it wouldn't require
coordination.  Could you please elaborate, possibly with a bug?

I'll fix the patch.  I didn't see repoman complain, but I may have just
missed it.  Sorry about that.

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 429 bytes --]

On Wednesday 28 December 2005 17:32, you wrote:
> It's not supposed to break runtime dependencies.  Everything that was
> installed before is installed now, in the same location.

But installed by another package. Of course it breaks dependencies when you 
depend on xpdf, because you expect it installs pdfinfo, but not that poppler 
does. It's not that both xpdf and pooppler are installed on every system.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Alexandre Buisse]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 14:08:18 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:

> On Wednesday 28 December 2005 17:32, you wrote:
> > It's not supposed to break runtime dependencies.  Everything that was
> > installed before is installed now, in the same location.
> 
> But installed by another package. Of course it breaks dependencies when you 
> depend on xpdf, because you expect it installs pdfinfo, but not that poppler 
> does. It's not that both xpdf and pooppler are installed on every system.

I don't see why. xpdf is a popular application and I use it everyday for
its lightweight and its speed, but that means I can't use, e.g. evince,
which is a nice replacement of ggv, and I also like to have many pdf
viewers, in case a document is not rendered well with one (and that
happens really often).

After my last sync, I have this new block between evince and xpdf, which
is a problem at least to me.

Isn't there any way to make xpdf and poppler live together on the same
system?

Alexandre
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 331 bytes --]

On Monday 02 January 2006 10:35, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> Isn't there any way to make xpdf and poppler live together on the same
> system?
emerge unmerge xpdf
emerge -u poppler
emerge xpdf

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 509 bytes --]

On Monday 02 January 2006 10:35, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> Isn't there any way to make xpdf and poppler live together on the same
> system?

This is not about not being able to run both xpdf and poppler on one system. 
The blocker exists, because one ebuild of one package installs now files 
previously installed by ebuilds of another package, which causes collisions, 
if you don't unmerge the affected ebuild. You can install a newer xpdf ebuild 
revision later. See also bug #79606.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Spider (DmD Lj)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 590 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 10:35 +0100, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> 
> After my last sync, I have this new block between evince and xpdf, which
> is a problem at least to me.
> 
> Isn't there any way to make xpdf and poppler live together on the same
> system?


Yeah.  : ) 

See, poppler blocks against -older- versions of xpdf, not against
"current" ones, so start by removing xpdf, upgrading poppler, then
re-install xpdf and you should be fine.

//Spider
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Luis F. Araujo]

Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:

>On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 10:35 +0100, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
>  
>
>>After my last sync, I have this new block between evince and xpdf, which
>>is a problem at least to me.
>>
>>Isn't there any way to make xpdf and poppler live together on the same
>>system?
>>    
>>
>
>
>Yeah.  : ) 
>
>See, poppler blocks against -older- versions of xpdf, not against
>"current" ones, so start by removing xpdf, upgrading poppler, then
>re-install xpdf and you should be fine.
>
>//Spider
>  
>
It shouldn't be needed to remove the old xpdf version before 
updating/installing
poppler.

 !<app-text/xpdf-3.01-r4 is on app-text/poppler , and i get a blocking error
with it.

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[blocks B     ] <app-text/xpdf-3.01-r4 (is blocking 
app-text/poppler-0.4.3-r1)
[ebuild  N    ] app-text/poppler-0.4.3-r1 

Now if i change to >=app-text/xpdf-3.01-r4 , it works just fine.

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild     U ] app-text/xpdf-3.01-r4 [3.01-r3] 
[ebuild  N    ] app-text/poppler-0.4.3-r1 

I am not sure what it is happening here though... is the !< notation broken?

I also think we should stick to the >= notation instead, which it is 
cleaner imho.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 04:30, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> Now if i change to >=app-text/xpdf-3.01-r4 , it works just fine.
But you significantly change its meaning.

> I am not sure what it is happening here though... is the !< notation
> broken?
Portage does not resolve block correctly, look at bugzilla there are tons of 
bugs open.

> I also think we should stick to the >= notation instead, which it is
> cleaner imho.
It does not mean the same, it would require adding a dep that is not actually 
there.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Luis F. Araujo]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:

>On Tuesday 03 January 2006 04:30, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
>  
>
>>Now if i change to >=app-text/xpdf-3.01-r4 , it works just fine.
>>    
>>
>But you significantly change its meaning.
>
>  
>
>>I am not sure what it is happening here though... is the !< notation
>>broken?
>>    
>>
>Portage does not resolve block correctly, look at bugzilla there are tons of 
>bugs open.
>
>  
>
So i suppose we should avoid using this kind of notation whenever possible.

>>I also think we should stick to the >= notation instead, which it is
>>cleaner imho.
>>    
>>
>It does not mean the same, it would require adding a dep that is not actually 
>there.
>
>  
>
Which dep?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 598 bytes --]

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 20:25, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> So i suppose we should avoid using this kind of notation whenever possible.
Or you can try to fix portage.

> Which dep?
xpdf.
poppler does _not_ require xpdf.
!< allows to avoid installing older xpdf and newer poppler at the same time
if you change that to >=, you get a forced fake dep on xpdf, requiring 
everyone using poppler to have xpdf installed, too.
That's what we're trying to avoid.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: shoving utils from xpdf to poppler...

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

On Tuesday 03 January 2006 20:25, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> >Portage does not resolve block correctly, look at bugzilla there are tons
> > of bugs open.
>
> So i suppose we should avoid using this kind of notation whenever possible.

See, it's not possible to avoid that with the current Portage version. Installing an ebuild, which installs files previously provided by ebuilds of another package results in an error, when you have FEATURES=collision-protect set. In such a case, it's a bug not to add this blocking dependency (and of course you have to add it mutually to the affected ebuilds) - as ugly as it is. And before you say, "Fine, lets add RESTRICT=collision-protect to this particular ebuild."; This doesn't work either, because you never know, when - or to which future version - a user will actually perform the update.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1345 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]