Am 23.11.2014 um 18:33 schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:31:45PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >> am I the only one who thinks that this way leads to madness? >> >> Version conflicts are bad enough. > First, version conflicts have their roots in the support for versions of > libraries in softwares. This is the best place to fix that when > possible. > > When it comes to ebuilds maintainers, version conflicts are about all > about DECLARATIONS. If software A need Y-v1..12, we should have a way > for the maintainers to declare that A relies on Y-v1..12 and let the > dependency softwares to the hard job and admin/users handle them the way > they want. > Today, this is badly managed with implicit expectations everywhere. > > Also, there are ways to overcome version conflicts. Slots are one of > them. > >> No multiply that with a bunch of >> overlays, all having their own libXY with just some tiny, tiny >> differences, and another bunch of overlays who want libXY from certain >> others.... > That's a reason why I said that overlays are a poor kind of pointers. > > For overlay maintainers today, if the main portage tree does not offer > what they expect, the only option they have is to rewrite their own > "static" dependency tree with their own ebuilds. That sucks. > > Portage should support a way to expose ALL the conditions for a software > to work and update installed libraries to match the requirements. >
and you want portage to finish on this site of eternity when looking for dependency resolution?
