On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 20:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:31 -0400 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > That's sensitive to old versions ebuilds being removed from the > > > tree, so it's utterly unworkable. > > > > I do not see why you think it's unworkable. Ebuilds already have > > dependencies that can be broken by removing an old version; if wombat > > depends on foo[bar], and you removed the only version of foo that had > > bar in IUSE, you broke wombat. Adding special LINGUAS handling would > > not change the fact that before deleting an ebuild, you need to > > verify that you did not render other ebuilds' dependencies > > unsatisfiable. > > That's not how undefaulted use dependencies work. If wombat depends > upon foo[bar], it is an error if there is *any* version of foo *ever* > that doesn't have bar in IUSE_EFFECTIVE.
Very odd; AFAICT neither portage nor repoman treats that situation as an error. I am guessing that this is another case where paludis does things differently? Be that as it may, even with paludis, the foo maintainer could easily break wombat if wombat depended on foo:bar, and the last ebuild matching foo:bar got removed; or on foo[bar,baz], and the only remaining versions of foo in the tree have REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( bar baz )"; or on foo[bar], when the only remaining versions of foo in the tree have bar disabled via profiles/base/package.use.mask.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
