On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:22:07 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
What about if you decide upon a early on, and then later on
something hard-depends upon b?
Then you're collapsing the graph too early. =)
(speaking as an utter novice)
This is the same kind of case as in bug
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:13:55 -0600
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
What about if you decide upon a early on, and then later on
something hard-depends upon b?
Then you're collapsing the graph too early. =)
(speaking as an utter novice)
Yeah, but unfortunately, there's no way to
On 12/17/2010 06:13 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 15:25 Fri 17 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Things get messier when you've got || ( a b-2.1 ) and b-2.0 is
installed and a is not. Should b be upgraded to 2.1, or should a be
selected?
It depends ... see later.
What about if you decide
Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
So would anyone be especially opposed to making best leftmost an
explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least for
the = / case)?
Why can't the PM handle = / cases itself?
Sebastian
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:27:05 +0100
Sebastian Luther sebastianlut...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
So would anyone be especially opposed to making best leftmost an
explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least
for the = / case)?
Why
On 12/17/10 4:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As a result of things like this, Portage has had various different sets
of heuristics over time, and Paludis has had a different set.
Generally it seems fine to have different heuristics (I'll comment on
the specific problem below).
Paludis
Am 17.12.2010 17:37, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:27:05 +0100
Sebastian Luther sebastianlut...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
So would anyone be especially opposed to making best leftmost an
explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:49:22 +0100
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
Paludis currently interprets this as I prefer 1.3.99.901, but will
also accept =1.3.99.901. In particular, if 1.3.99.901[xcb] is
already installed, libX11 won't be upgraded. Some Portage versions
also do
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:56:21 +0100
Sebastian Luther sebastianlut...@gmx.de wrote:
Why can't the PM handle = / cases itself?
Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' = / . You can
add in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases, but the
second someone throws things
On 12/17/10 18:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:56:21 +0100
Sebastian Luther sebastianlut...@gmx.de wrote:
Why can't the PM handle = / cases itself?
Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' = / . You can
add in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases,
On 15:25 Fri 17 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
How should a dependency like || ( a b c ) be interpreted?
Traditionally, it's been described as something like:
* if a matches an installed package, a
* otherwise, if b matches an installed package, b
* otherwise, if c matches an installed
11 matches
Mail list logo
