On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Hi, > > reading comments on bug 209538, I've seen this dangerous thing from Zac: > > "Once these issues are solved it will be nice if we can rely exclusively > on the dependencies from /var/db/pkg." > > 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
pgpiIfINfwuXf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
