* Re: [gentoo-pms] Rephrasing *DEPEND
@ 2011-06-20 11:26 99% ` Ulrich Mueller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2011-06-20 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Ciaran McCreesh; +Cc: Michał Górny, gentoo-pms, Zac Medico
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:21:02 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I added a note about the possible circular RDEPEND issue.
> I still don't think we should be specifying "RDEPEND is PDEPEND if
> the package manager feels like it". That's something for the package
> mangler to provide as a horrible --ignore-dependencies-to-break-cycles
> option.
It's _not_ saying that RDEPEND is like PDEPEND in some cases. The
assertion from your previous message in this thread will always hold:
| The intention with the "usable" stuff is this that purely RDEPEND
| cycles are resolvable, but any such cycles must be resolved before
| any package which has a DEPEND upon anything in the cycle is
| resolved. So if you've got this:
|
| first <-- rdepend --- second <-- depend --- third
| --- rdepend -->
|
| Then (first, second, third) and (second, first, third) are the only
| legal orderings. But if either RDEPEND became a DEPEND (and if we're
| not dealing with binary packages) then there would be no legal
| ordering.
This is long-standing Portage behaviour (introduced in 2006 with the
patches attached to bug 147766, I believe).
The footnote would only clarify that in your example neither "first"
nor "second" can rely on their rdepend being available in pkg_*inst.
Ulrich
^ 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
2011-06-19 21:21 ` Michał Górny
2011-06-19 21:36 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2011-06-20 11:26 99% ` Ulrich Mueller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox