[gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only
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 :) Thanks, Caster -- gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only
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
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only
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
