Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Conary

[Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>]

On Friday 22 October 2004 22:11, John Nilsson wrote:
> > Portage really needs to know this anyway to be able to sort out possible
> > breakage when things are upgraded. Sure, everything can be scanned but
> > that is very time-consuming and thus a PITA for the end-user.
> >
> > Remember that the packages, once installed, are always binary and any
> > change to versions are just as likely to cause breakage within the
> > installed system regardless of how the new packages are installed.
>
> This just as good a time as any time to bring this up:
>
> The portage tree is getting larger and there is already talk about
> making portage support download on demand... or something like that.
>
> Why not express the dependency as an RDF graph? A dependency statement
> would be a complete uri. This would also remove the need to maintain a
> single package namespace.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but there are no problems with 
expressing the dependencies. The "problem" is figuring out the loosest set of 
specifations that still wont break anything.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list