From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10014 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 13:19:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Oct 2004 13:19:34 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CKzKQ-0003Ua-QA for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:19:34 +0000 Received: (qmail 28283 invoked by uid 89); 22 Oct 2004 13:19:33 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 18763 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 13:19:33 +0000 From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:21:37 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <4176E087.7090909@libero.it> <200410222024.52796.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <1098450694.2173.7.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> In-Reply-To: <1098450694.2173.7.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410222221.39760.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Conary X-Archives-Salt: 6c8c4da0-aea4-4dd6-a375-ce829ee357dd X-Archives-Hash: d591029379d6b155be7dd9cec3ca8141 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