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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H1Jl3-0000Sl-To for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:47:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l019kEH6007991; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:46:14 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l019h9eU005765 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:43:10 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779E664B1F for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:43:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.161 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.161 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yc8t88UqblX0 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172B864B00 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 09:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H1Jh8-0006Ej-Lp for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:43:02 +0100 Received: from 82.152.99.78 ([82.152.99.78]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:43:02 +0100 Received: from slong by 82.152.99.78 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:43:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dependencies on system packages Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:44:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20061210011117.36672693@blashyrk> <200612171510.57159.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20061217070429.126d8364@snowdrop> <200612171641.40343.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20061217074812.497d4e78@snowdrop> <20061218084846.77600f69@snowdrop> <20061220102054.150d5f5a@snowdrop> <459557DF.8090106@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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.99.78 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 66a63587-ac23-481f-afd0-c3b9fdfa9eb8 X-Archives-Hash: fb6d544af4da79730f8b25c316dc1a31 Alec Warner wrote: >>> The tricky part then is figuring out whether something doesn't dep upon >>> c-compiler because it doesn't need one or because the ebuilds haven't >>> been updated. >>> >> I'm out of my depth here- I can't see where that would be a problem? >> > > Er, his point being that if you don't do the upgrade all at once, you > have two classes of package. > > 1. Packages that don't require C-compiler > 2. Packages that don't yet depend upon C-compiler > > When doing the upgrade over a period of time the two classes of package > become indistinguishable. Does Foo not need a C compiler, or has it > just not gotten updated yet, it's impossible to tell without looking, so > it's very difficult for people to report 'problem packages' because they > have to unpack and examine the package every time (at worst). > I understand that there'd be two types of pkg in the tree; what I don't get is why that is such a problem. Excuse my missing something obvious. What do you mean by a `problem package' in this context? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list