Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:45:13 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd go with RDEPEND only. Any other interpretation results in
installing build-time-only packages along with a binpkg, which
doesn't seem to make sense.
That's definitely not what we wa
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:38:06 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every package dependency in DEPEND is installed and usable before
src_unpack starts, right? So is the question here whether or not they
can be uninstalled right before pkg_{pre,post}
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 08:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > We definitely don't want to install DEPEND at the pkg_* stages, so I'd
> > say the requirement there, if you're asking, is prior to src_*, if
> > that matters.
>
> If the alternatives are not being able to install from a binary at all
>
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:43:08 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would agree that RDEPEND should likely be installed prior to
> pkg_preinst to satisfy the dependency. After all, PDEPEND is "good
> enough" for doing packages that aren't required at
> pkg_preinst/pkg_postinst.
It'
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 06:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My interpretation is pkg_* counts as runtime (I can imagine a package
> > wanting to run itself at this point), so packages in RDEPEND should
> > be usabl
2008-04-21 12:05 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał(a):
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > cat/a-1: RDEPEND cat/b
> > cat/b-1: RDEPEND cat/a
> >
> > This is solvable. If package managers can't solve this, they can't
> > install Gnome off a stage 3...
> >
>
> Which are the packages involved in su
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 f
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.
Us
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
cat/a-1: RDEPEND cat/b
cat/b-1: RDEPEND cat/a
This is solvable. If package managers can't solve this, they can't
install Gnome off a stage 3...
Which are the packages involved in such cycle?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.g
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:52:57 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | cat/a-1 is installed and has RDEPEND cat/b
> | cat/a-2 is to be installed and has DEPEND cat/b and RDEPEND =cat/b-2
> | cat/b-1 is installed and has RDEPEND cat/a
> | cat/b-2 is to be installed and has DEPEN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:17:27 -0700
| Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> I don't think I understand the difference between the effects of
|> these two options.
|
| cat/a-1 is installed and has RDEPEND cat/b
| cat/a-2
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:17:27 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think I understand the difference between the effects of
> these two options.
cat/a-1 is installed and has RDEPEND cat/b
cat/a-2 is to be installed and has DEPEND cat/b and RDEPEND =cat/b-2
cat/b-1 is installed
On 06:33 Sat 19 Apr , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My interpretation is pkg_* counts as runtime (I can imagine a package
> > wanting to run itself at this point), so packages in RDEPEND should
> > be usable at that
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:29:10 -0700
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Stop name dropping labels until you tell folk about what labels are.
> > I know, but I'd rather not have the notion "labels solves al
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:29:10 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not all cycles are solvable w/in the domain of execution which is an
> unfortunate fact. This loops back into why jstubbs was after use dep
> cycle breaking (fair bit more fine grained of an issue), a discussion
> tha
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:57:28AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:38:06 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know what the general use of pkg_preinst is, but in
> > pkg_postinst the package itself should be runnable, so its RDEPENDS
> > sh
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:38:06 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every package dependency in DEPEND is installed and usable before
> src_unpack starts, right? So is the question here whether or not they
> can be uninstalled right before pkg_{pre,post}inst starts?
If we're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I'm rewording the PMS sections on dependencies to avoid permitting
| overly lax circular dependency resolution. Which of these wordings is
| accurate, given that usable means "has its RDEPENDs installed and
| usable"?
|
| 1. D
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:27:21 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My interpretation is pkg_* counts as runtime (I can imagine a package
> wanting to run itself at this point), so packages in RDEPEND should
> be usable at that point.
Which would be fine, except it makes the tree unus
On 05:54 Sat 19 Apr , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:45:13 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd go with RDEPEND only. Any other interpretation results in
> > installing build-time-only packages along with a binpkg, which
> > doesn't seem to make sense.
>
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:45:13 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd go with RDEPEND only. Any other interpretation results in
> installing build-time-only packages along with a binpkg, which
> doesn't seem to make sense.
That's definitely not what we want. Only a package's DEPENDs
On 05:31 Sat 19 Apr , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I'm rewording the PMS sections on dependencies to avoid permitting
> overly lax circular dependency resolution. Which of these wordings is
> accurate, given that usable means "has its RDEPENDs installed and
> usable"?
>
> 1. During pkg_preinst and
I'm rewording the PMS sections on dependencies to avoid permitting
overly lax circular dependency resolution. Which of these wordings is
accurate, given that usable means "has its RDEPENDs installed and
usable"?
1. During pkg_preinst and pkg_postinst, any package dependency that is
in both DEPEND
23 matches
Mail list logo
