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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Reliance upon || ( use? ( ) ) behaviour
From:       Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm () ciaranm ! org>
Date:       2007-02-24 19:33:01
Message-ID: 20070224193301.25d6d158 () snowdrop
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:51:09 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| So with your DEPEND="|| ( tetex ptex )" case, you're saying that it
| is valid because the choice of tetex or ptex doesn't affect the
| resultant binaries? Extrapolating that, specifying link dependencies
| within an || construct is flat out wrong?

Yep.

| If so, it's way out of my domain so I can't really comment other than
| you haven't given a reason for this requirement.

The reason is that that's all Portage and the current VDB and
binary formats permit.

| Having said that, I'll accept it if we're strictly talking in the
| EAPI-0 domain as there is no way for a package manager to guarantee a
| safe --depclean implmentation given that raw *DEPENDs are stored in
| the current installed package database.

Right. Even as a >EAPI-0 requirement, the way it is now (slots
excluded) makes sense because it's the easiest way of guaranteeing
consistency of binary packages. Users should never (excluding
blockers, which are a different issue) be forced to uninstall a package
just so that a binary builds in a particular way.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                                 : http://ciaranm.org/
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


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