On Tuesday 27 December 2005 12:08, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:54:38AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:40, Brian Harring wrote: > > > The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3.5- it should be > > > depending on libk* slot=3.5, also, no? > > > > No! It (and also its dependencies) can be built against each 3.x slot. > > > > > As long as the information is represented dependency wise, portage > > > should be able to handle it fine. Just need to have that info there. > > > > It can't be handled dependency wise, because what is interesting is > > against which KDE version the relevant ebuilds are actually installed. > > So note the comment in the email you are responding to about locking > down the used dep/rdeps for an install. > > Via that, could lock down the slot it was compiled against. Bit more > to it then that, but the concerns your raising *again* are not > use/slot based, your pointing at other portage faults (thus please > seperate those concerns from use/slot).
I may be missing something, but I can't see how this will resolve Carsten's issue. From what I can tell, the ebuilds would be laid out something like: digikam:DEPEND="|| ( kdelibs:3.5 kdelibs:3.4 ) libkipi libkexif" libkipi:DEPEND="|| ( kdelibs:3.5 kdelibs:3.4 )" libkexif:DEPEND="|| ( kdelibs:3.5 kdelibs:3.4 )" If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without rebuilding the others will break digikam. I can't see how it's directly represented in the metadata unless you want to overload the meaning of SLOT. If overloading, dependencies would be flattened (meaning "|| ( kdelibs:3.5 kdelibs:3.4 )" would have became "kdelibs:3.4" for the original install) within the installed package database but there's also there's the implication that only one slot of a package be allowed in a connected set of nodes. Is that what you're getting at? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
