On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0500
Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Because in my opinion, portage is the first thing in line to keep a 
> system sane.  Installing packages that are not needed means that
> portage fails on that.  So in your example, portage fails to do its
> due diligence and it falls to the users to do it for portage.  Yep,
> sounds like a good idea.

No, portage does what the dependencies are telling it to do. I.e., if
you have unversioned dev-lang/python in DEPEND, or
>=dev-lang/python-2.4 or whatever similar then it installs
>dev-lang/python:3 - why? Because the ebuilds tell portage that it will
work like that. Another example: you have an ebuild that only works w/
gtk+-1* - you don't go to the ML asking for masking gtk+-2* but instead
go and fix the dependencies to properly reflect that. So, now you can go
and fix the dependencies treewide, or you can simply mask it *locally*
if you don't want it. You'd still need to mask it if you install
something that *really* works with both 2.x and 3.1 slots if you don't
want python-3. It's like with any other slotted stuff in the tree, but
for a reason unknown to me it's a huge issue all of a sudden because
wheeee, t3h noes, it's python. 

And on that note - noone cares why people has lots of dev-libs/boost
slots installed and why's the darned thing slotted on every minor
version. So while talking about wrong dependencies, maybe the boost
maintainer could explain why do we need it slotted like this:
SLOT="$(get_version_component_range 1-2)" - simply because I'm tired of
depcleaning it all the time as nothing requires multiple slots of this
thing here.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to