On Monday 11 February 2008 12:50:39 Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND > > version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :) > > > > Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but > > I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible." > > > > So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :) > > If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for > > noise and please point me there :) > > Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's > not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have > the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo. > > Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and > add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't > looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they > encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however. > > ~brian This should really be [possible|done] without introducing yet another ugly and very difficult to maintain update/* hack? -- gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
