On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:01:13AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:29, Brian Harring wrote: > > So... basically, your concern is with the resolver, not use/slot deps > > syntax. > > I did not say that this would have anything to do with the syntax. Am I right > to extract from your words that we get rid of ~arch users complains about > up/downgrade cycles with Portage 2.1 as well, but have them confronted with a > proper error message!? :)
Never said anything about 2.1 + resolver enhancements (no clue where that one came from). Merely commenting on your raised issues about use/slot deps. > > > - The dependencies we have are always >=kde-libs/kde-x.y and when KDE 4 > > > is due, we can change to =kde-libs/kde-3.5* because everything else won't > > > be supported anymore. So unless I miss something, kde-libs/kde:X is > > > superfluous. > > > > Missing something /me thinks. > > shouldn't really be specifying >=kde-x.y; should be specifying the > > slotting. Do that, and you wouldn't have to go back and change it > > over to =kde-libs/kde-3.5* ; you just mark the new kde-4 as a > > different slot. > > Of course slot dependencies are cleaner. Just that they don't address a > practical problem with ebuilds buildable against multiple slotted ebuilds of > one packages, but the need to have them, their dependencies and all other > ebuilds depending on the latter (ones [sp?]) built against one and the same > ebuild ( In reality a set of ebuilds, named KDE X.Y). That sounds more like a failure of the ebuild's dep/rdep specification, either that or your hinting at the need to lock down the rdep's an ebuild was built against. Either way, still not totally following your complaint, thus an actual example would help (easiest to assume I'm a moron, and start at that level of explanation). ~harring
pgpQ2ALMkuOU4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
