On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> A: PDEPEND="B"
> B: DEPEND="A"
>
> If this is what you call RDEPEND conceptually broken, then sorry for
> useles try to explain it :) Maybe package manager could be smart enough
> and relax the RDEPEND in such cases itself, maybe it's better to s
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Well, I should point out where I come from. There is no need to install a pure
runtime dependency before the ebuild pulling it in. If pure runtime
dependencies would be handled this way, there would be no need for PDEPEND at
all. I consider the current way Portage handles
On Wednesday 25 of July 2007 16:18:04 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Give one example of a legitimate use of dependencies that will break by
> this change. In your answer, consider that someone might install the
> post package as a target without having its dependencies installed.
I am not saying it's b
On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Brian Harring wrote:
> I suggest you in the future check out what actually was changed, and
> do some testing- both the original poster, and yourself are missing
> what is occuring here
Uh, thanks, I never was fond of reading the code of Portage, so I took Piotr's
poin
On Wednesday 25 of July 2007 16:18:06 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I've read the bugs you've referenced and it just sounds like a bug in
> the Paludis ebuilds not having the proper depends.
>
> This e-mail was just some fear mongering on behalf of Paludis devs.
I think you misread my e-mail completly a
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:24:14 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:46:43 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Now how in the world do you pull a depend that needs to be merged
> >> AFTER the original package?
>
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:28:27 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They do. You didn't understand the question at all. Examples off the
> top of my head..
>
> ipw2100, ipw2200, ivtv, mythtv.
>
> I want ivtv support...
>
> emerge ivtv
>
> It should pull in pvr-firmware immediately af
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:06 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This e-mail was just some fear mongering on behalf of Paludis devs.
No no. It's on behalf of Piotr, who is a Gentoo developer who happens
to not understand dependency resolution.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
De
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> We need to update docs or harass zmedico to force PDEPEND to be pulled as
> soon
> as possible but not before the pkg that pulls it.
There is another problem with PDEPEND that I've run into: if you are
doing an emerge that fails some time after the package containing t
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:51:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'm pretty sure nearly everyone using PDEPEND in his ebuilds
> relies on Portage building the PDEPEND not before the ebuild, which
> lists it.
And I'm pretty sure they don't, since they have the post package
DEPENDi
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:51:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And I'm pretty sure nearly everyone using PDEPEND in his ebuilds
relies on Portage building the PDEPEND not before the ebuild, which
lists it.
And I'm pretty sure they don't, since they
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:51:55PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the
> > package that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour
>
> Well, then what our Portage devs
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:46:43 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now how in the world do you pull a depend that needs to be merged
AFTER the original package?
You make the after package DEPEND upon the before package.
except the user only has to e
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:08:39 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to update docs or harass zmedico to force PDEPEND to be
> pulled as soon as possible but not before the pkg that pulls it.
Give one example of a legitimate use of dependencies that will break by
this change.
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
circular DEPEND <-> RDEPEND can't be resolved whil
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:46:43 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now how in the world do you pull a depend that needs to be merged
> AFTER the original package?
You make the after package DEPEND upon the before package.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the
> package that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour
Well, then what our Portage devs think the intended behaviour should be is a
bug. E.g. in the case the bug
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
circular DEPEND <-> RDEPEND can't be resolved whil
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:08:39PM +0200, Piotr Jaroszy??ski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
> that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
> a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
circular DEPEND <-> RDEPEND can't be resolved while circular DEPEND <->
PDEP
20 matches
Mail list logo
