On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Tom K wrote: > Eric Belanger wrote: > > The reason pacman complains about broken dependency is because when it > > goes on to remove libraw1394, it doesn't know that libraw1394-svn will be > > installed a few seconds later. > > I'd have to disagree. pacman knows that the -svn package will be > installed, because we've just told it, i.e. pacman -A > libraw1394-svn-32768.pkg.tar.gz. Not only that, but pacman knows about > the conflict, because it has read the -svn .PKGINFO file - the same file > that gives pacman the provides= info.
Yes, perhaps it knows that the -svn package will be installed, but it doesn't use the provides= info. Otherwise, there would be no dependency problems. :P Obviously, it knows that the -svn package will be installed immediately after the removal of libraw1394. > > So, should it not be possible to do pacman -Qi $provides and exclude any > packages on the 'Required By' list from the dependency check? It might be simpler/faster if pacman could figure out that the -svn package will fullfill the libraw1394 dependency (because of provides field) and just go on with the installation. > > Before anyone says 'OK, so where's your patch?' - I'm no developer, > apart from which this only occurred to me while reading this thread. > Maybe this is all taken care of in pacman 3? > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
