[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev]  Re: Re: Re: Re: Dependencies on system packages
From:       Alec Warner <antarus () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2006-12-29 18:01:03
Message-ID: 459557DF.8090106 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Steve Long wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Steve Long wrote:
>> | How serious an issue is it in terms of deps on sys pkgs?
>>
>> Very. It means we can't realistically handle packages that, by using
>> autotools, depend upon the fifty odd system packages that are used by
>> autotools-generated code.
>>
>> | > | > DEPEND="virtual/c-toolchain" would indeed be nice, but it's a
>> | > | > rather large change...
>> | > | > 
>> | > | How so? Isn't it simply a new meta?
>> | > 
>> | > And an entire tree to update before it becomes meaningful.
>> | > 
>> | Sure, but the changes can propagate thru as people update their
>> | ebuilds, no?
>>
>> The tricky part then is figuring out whether something doesn't dep upon
>> c-compiler because it doesn't need one or because the ebuilds haven't
>> been updated.
>>
> I'm out of my depth here- I can't see where that would be a problem?
> 

Er, his point being that if you don't do the upgrade all at once, you 
have two classes of package.

1. Packages that don't require C-compiler
2. Packages that don't yet depend upon C-compiler

When doing the upgrade over a period of time the two classes of package 
become indistinguishable.  Does Foo not need a C compiler, or has it 
just not gotten updated yet, it's impossible to tell without looking, so 
it's very difficult for people to report 'problem packages' because they 
have to unpack and examine the package every time (at worst).

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]