On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:53:29 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:57, Marius Mauch wrote: > > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > > Reasoning on checking all system atoms is that other groups are > > > just as likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining > > > that with how rarely versions are actually updated for system > > > packages, it shouldn't cause any more bother to users than it > > > needs to. > > > > Well, that approach has one major problem: it won't help for profile > > changes (like the mess with the cascaded profiles). > > Making the tree DEPEND on a specific portage version won't help > either. If the user doesn't have a profile, they have no ARCH or > other important things which means they can't use emerge. There can be other potential changes that will not break portage completely. > > Also I don't see what "system" has to do with handling the tree > > itself, and for anything else people can add dependencies, or am I > > missing something here? > > Doing it via system is more generic with no loss in functionality > that I can see. As I said above, the only time that not doing it in > system would be useful is if system itself is not available but > profile problems imply that one can't emerge anyway. It has other drawbacks though. First "system" is arbitrary, imagine a "nterprise desktop" profile or so where sytem includes gnome/kde. The main issue I have with it though is that it spreads the focus too much, your example had what, 20 packages? What I'm after is a information when we *know* that the tree won't work anymore, not a "it may be better to upgrade". Did I mention that I don't really like this idea in the first place? Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
