On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:38:16 -0700
Christina Fullam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I've mentioned quite a bit, I feel that some of these
questions still need addressing... This lot can probably be added to
my candidate info stuffs/platform thingie on the site...
[..snip..]
1) What you will
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Yeah, you should take that to -project or some other suitable list :P
Once some consensus is made and it actually becomes policy, sure. Until
then, I'm going to continue to use this list for the same things it's
been used for up until now. Once we've agreed upon
# Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (25 Jul 2007)
# Broken, doesn't build -- using OSS and GTK+-1.2.
# Last release from upstream 9 years ago.
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
media-sound/playmidi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
atoms?
Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
eh, i'm not
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
duplication.
It isn't duplicated, description is per ebuild and could change,
metadata is for the package as whole.
can you point
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
circular DEPEND - RDEPEND can't be resolved while circular DEPEND -
PDEPEND
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:08:39PM +0200, Piotr Jaroszy??ski wrote:
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
# Tony Vroon [EMAIL PROTECTED] (25 Jul 2007)
# Unsuitable for IXP route server usage
# Seems incomplete for most other workloads
# Lost interest in this package, removal on 25 Aug 2007.
net-misc/bird
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
circular DEPEND - RDEPEND can't be resolved while
On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the
package that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour
Well, then what our Portage devs think the intended behaviour should be is a
bug. E.g. in the case the bug
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:22:21 +0300
Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (25 Jul 2007)
# Broken, doesn't build -- using OSS and GTK+-1.2.
# Last release from upstream 9 years ago.
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
media-sound/playmidi
Undo this, fixed
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:46:43 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now how in the world do you pull a depend that needs to be merged
AFTER the original package?
You make the after package DEPEND upon the before package.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:46:43 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now how in the world do you pull a depend that needs to be merged
AFTER the original package?
You make the after package DEPEND upon the before package.
except the user only has to
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
As a result of bug #180045 PDEPENDs can be now merged even before the package
that pulls them. Zmedico says that's intended behaviour and PDEPEND is really
a RDEPEND, but with a ability to resolve circular deps:
circular DEPEND - RDEPEND can't be resolved while
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:51:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I'm pretty sure nearly everyone using PDEPEND in his ebuilds
relies on Portage building the PDEPEND not before the ebuild, which
lists it.
And I'm pretty sure they don't, since they
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:51:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I'm pretty sure nearly everyone using PDEPEND in his ebuilds
relies on Portage building the PDEPEND not before the ebuild, which
lists it.
And I'm pretty sure they don't, since they have the post package
DEPENDing
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
We need to update docs or harass zmedico to force PDEPEND to be pulled as
soon
as possible but not before the pkg that pulls it.
There is another problem with PDEPEND that I've run into: if you are
doing an emerge that fails some time after the package containing the
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:06 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This e-mail was just some fear mongering on behalf of Paludis devs.
No no. It's on behalf of Piotr, who is a Gentoo developer who happens
to not understand dependency resolution.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:28:27 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do. You didn't understand the question at all. Examples off the
top of my head..
ipw2100, ipw2200, ivtv, mythtv.
I want ivtv support...
emerge ivtv
It should pull in pvr-firmware immediately after since
On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Brian Harring wrote:
I suggest you in the future check out what actually was changed, and
do some testing- both the original poster, and yourself are missing
what is occuring here
Uh, thanks, I never was fond of reading the code of Portage, so I took Piotr's
point
On Wednesday 25 of July 2007 16:18:04 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Give one example of a legitimate use of dependencies that will break by
this change. In your answer, consider that someone might install the
post package as a target without having its dependencies installed.
I am not saying it's
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Well, I should point out where I come from. There is no need to install a pure
runtime dependency before the ebuild pulling it in. If pure runtime
dependencies would be handled this way, there would be no need for PDEPEND at
all. I consider the current way Portage handles
Hi,
Many people may already have noticed it, but here's an
announcement for those who haven't yet.
Gentoo-project and gentoo-dev-announce mailing lists created.
These two mailing lists have been created to improve the flow of
information and create an appropriate channel for non-technical
On Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
A: PDEPEND=B
B: DEPEND=A
If this is what you call RDEPEND conceptually broken, then sorry for
useles try to explain it :) Maybe package manager could be smart enough
and relax the RDEPEND in such cases itself, maybe it's better to say
that
24 matches
Mail list logo
