On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:10:53 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> Really, it seems to be an additional type of dependency that > >> neither DEPEND or RDEPEND fully describe, and this DEPEND+RDEPEND > >> idea isn't quite capturing it either. > > > > Yup, and for future EAPIs labels can fix this. But we have to have a > > sound solution for current EAPIs. > > Usually I rather see the specific problem before looking for > solutions.
The specific problem is that ebuilds currently rely upon the package manager providing circular dependency resolution that works, so we need a good definition of just what's allowed to resolve cycles. But we can't take "what Portage does" as that definition, because Portage's behaviour is "usually get it right by fluke, except when things go horribly wrong". -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
