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 1EsJjy-0000HH-6i for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:52:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBUCp6LL004706; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:51:06 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBUCmGuq032320 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:48:16 GMT Received: from zb101200.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([219.125.101.200] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1EsJg7-0004tr-Vx for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:48:16 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AD961201B78; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:49:24 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:49:24 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <43A235AD.6030604@leetworks.com> <200512301035.41814.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <1135945051.2837.8.camel@Darkmere.darkmere> In-Reply-To: <1135945051.2837.8.camel@Darkmere.darkmere> 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: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512302149.24314.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b5c63e0e-b890-468c-bc83-c94e2d287b70 X-Archives-Hash: 60ed8ed617b7fcb44f1b6ef6f28343ee On Friday 30 December 2005 21:17, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 10:35 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > On Friday 30 December 2005 01:35, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:06 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:53:14 +0100 Carsten Lohrke > > > > > > Thats actually viable. For -installed- ebuilds, we simply unpack all > > > RDEPEND logic, remove all use flags ( stored, but the use logic is > > > removed from the RDEPEND since its already resolved, doesn't need to be > > > there. The binary is static already ) > > > > > > Then check vs. the installed SLOT of all RDEPEND packages, and lock our > > > current deptree to the package of that SLOT... > > > > I suggested this last Tuesday.. > > No, what you suggested was that for the case of when you depend on a > SLOT, then the tree is flattened. My point was for the generic case : > > DEPEND=">=kde-base/kdelibs-3.0" (as many ebuilds look today) > > is then expanded to the current matching SLOT of kdelibs, so even if > there -wasn't- a SLOT requirement beforehand, there is one afterwards. Okay, I misinterpreted. Anyway, it looks like neither of our ideas will work: app-text/docbook-sgml/docbook-sgml-1.0.ebuild: RDEPEND="app-text/sgml-common app-text/openjade >=app-text/docbook-dsssl-stylesheets-1.64 >=app-text/docbook-sgml-utils-0.6.6 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-3.0 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-4.0 ~app-text/docbook-sgml-dtd-4.1" docbook-sgml-dtd-3.0-r3.ebuild:SLOT="3.0" docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1-r3.ebuild:SLOT="3.1" docbook-sgml-dtd-4.0-r3.ebuild:SLOT="4.0" docbook-sgml-dtd-4.1-r3.ebuild:SLOT="4.1" -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list