* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only
@ 2008-02-11 11:58 99% ` Selckin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Selckin @ 2008-02-11 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
On Monday 11 February 2008 12:50:39 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND
> > version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :)
> >
> > Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but
> > I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible."
> >
> > So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :)
> > If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for
> > noise and please point me there :)
>
> Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's
> not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have
> the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo.
>
> Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and
> add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't
> looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they
> encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however.
>
> ~brian
This should really be [possible|done] without introducing yet another ugly and
very difficult to maintain update/* hack?
--
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ 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 --
2008-02-11 8:48 [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only Vlastimil Babka
2008-02-11 11:50 ` Brian Harring
2008-02-11 11:58 99% ` Selckin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox