On Tuesday 27 December 2005 01:33, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability. > > Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later > and it would be good if Portage catches it, instead spitting out a weird > message, leaving the root of the issue in the dark. Should be also simple > to write a test case. > > > Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each > > revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and > > ~ and < and <= dependencies entirely. Which is a good thing, since > > those atoms make dependency resolution a general-case unsolvable > > problem. > > The problem is not the SLOT change, but to build "foo" depending on "bar" > against KDE X, while bar is built against KDE Y. "foo" and "bar" support > all slotted KDE versions, but they need to be build against the same one. > You simply cannot express this via slot dependencies, so this feature is > useless for KDE packages.
Yes, this needs more sophisticated ebuild syntax and handling. In general one must support dependent dependencies for this. This requires many features portage doesn't offer yet. A.o. recording the actual versions that satisfied a dependency at compile time. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpLVfMXmW7nj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
