Re: [gentoo-dev] blocking mixed versions of split QT libraries

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1331 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:01:22 +0300
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> is paludis expected to behave like portage in the near future
> regarding these blocks?

Probably not. My issue with the way Portage does soft blocks is that
it's way too arbitrary, fuzzy and ill defined.

There were plans to do blocks properly (include annotations that would
let the developer tell the package manager to point the user to a URL
explaining the block and how to resolve it) back before Zac went and
did his own thing. One of the goals was to tell the package manager
exactly what was meant by the block, allowing the package manager to
come up with a much more sensible and far less dangerous solution. If
those plans are ever revived, Paludis would support them.

> are there any plans to add support for these kinds of cases in the
> PMS? other sets of packages could probably benefit from such a feature
> as well.

I don't recall any existing discussion about such a feature (beyond me
moaning in pre-EAPI days about vim/gvim/vim-core breaking in the same
way Qt does). So... The way to start is probably by identifying the
problem in detail, and identifying other groups of packages affected by
similar issues, so we can work out what exactly it is we'd be looking
to fix.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]