Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.provided messes up emerging of package slots?

[Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:48:01 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:

> > If you provide xyz-1.2.3 then portage does not know what *you* did
> > to achieve that and makes no attempt to deal with it at all. You are
> > expected to completely 100% deal with all of xyz, including all
> > slots. "man 5 portage" mentions that the version number is there in
> > package.provided so that portage can alert you if some other package
> > has a dep on a version of xyz you did not provide.  
> 
> Yes, on a *version*, not on a *slot*, which is in effect a different 
> package but simply using the same name.

I can't explain that (and reading the portage sources is not something
that fills me with joy).

I can think up a few possibilities ranging from the .provided code
predates slots and has never been touched since all the way up to there
being some real conflict you and I don't know about.


> 
> 
> > Seen in that light, the behaviour is indeed sensible, just not
> > consistent if you haven't read the docs yet. I don't think it's
> > wise to try and change portage's behaviour with this, as Michael
> > said in another sub-thread portage has no idea what you did so it
> > can't even try to take control of different slots for fear it might
> > clobber all your manual hard work  
> 
> As I mentioned in my other post, portage should stop working
> altogether then, because conflicts can arise with any other package.
> But portage *does* allows me to install package "foo" if I have
> "bar-1.0" listed in package.provided.  For the same reason, it should
> allow me install "foo:2" if I have a "foo" in package.provided that
> belongs to the "foo:1" slot.

If portage tries to clobber a file you provided, then portage will see
it and collision-protect will do it's job. If you clobber an existing
file while installing something you provided, well that's your fault
and you should have paid attention. So I don't think the foo|bar
scenario you describe is anything worth worrying about. 

Maybe it really is just a case of "You provided xyz, you will
therefore provide everything about xyz, even slots". I know that's the
starting position I would take if I were Zac.


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com