On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:51:09 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Description: PGP signature
