On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:05:22 +0100 "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/16/11 2:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Second, when performing updates, Paludis also rewrites dependencies > > of installed packages to use the names. > > This seems to imply that portage behaves differently. Should we update > PMS when we determine what's the correct behavior?
Last time I looked, Portage simply left the old dependencies lying around, and then silently ignored them most but not all of the time. PMS has very little to say about how to deal with installed stuff, and specifies only the format of the updates file, not how it is to be handled. That's almost certainly a good thing, since for historical reasons Portage has some highly perverse behaviour when it comes to packages where you've got the same version both installed and available in a repository or overlay (and different Portage versions are perverse to different extents on that). Requiring emulation of early Portage design mistakes would just stop Portage from gradually fixing things over time as has been happening up to now. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
