* Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND
@ 2011-06-12 14:01 99% ` Brian Harring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Brian Harring @ 2011-06-12 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Zac Medico
Cc: Ulrich Mueller, Michał Górny, gentoo-pms,
Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:13:35AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/12/2011 01:18 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >> True. How about pkg_setup()? Shall we assume RDEPEND are there or
> >> rely on @system only?
> >
> > IIUC, with Portage's breaking of dependency cycles there's no absolute
> > guarantee that packages in RDEPEND will be available in pkg_*.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that it's guaranteed except for cases
> in which circular dependencies make it impossible to guarantee.
Those instances shouldn't be just dropped by the manager; a
--force-break-ebuild-rules option for those cases is one thing, same
for attempting multiple merge/replace to break a use cycle.
But if it just says "meh" to a cycle... that's wrong.
Under what scenarios will it pull that?
~brian
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-06-11 7:32 [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND Michał Górny
2011-06-11 11:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2011-06-12 7:52 ` Michał Górny
2011-06-12 8:18 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-06-12 9:13 ` Zac Medico
2011-06-12 14:01 99% ` Brian Harring
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox