On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:15:54 Sebastian Luther wrote: >> WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency >> conflict: >> >> dev-python/numpy:0 >> (dev-python/numpy-1.6.0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts >> with ~dev-python/numpy-1.5.1 required by >> (sci-mathematics/sage-4.7.1-r2::sage-on-gentoo, installed) >> >> dev-python/pexpect:0 >> (dev-python/pexpect-2.4-r1::sage-on-gentoo, ebuild scheduled for >> merge) conflicts with ~dev-python/pexpect-2.0 required by >> (sci-mathematics/sage-4.7.1-r2::sage-on-gentoo, installed) >> >> Fact is that sci-mathematics/sage can't be made work without those deps. >> Fact is that I want this package and couldn't care less if I have the >> latest version of these other two packages. >> >> If in turn I cared for the other two packages, then I would have to >> remove sage. It's a choice but nothing else. > > it's a crap choice. users shouldn't have to select from diff sets of packages > because some are too broken to work properly. it's a bug and needs to be > fixed. and it shouldn't require twisting of arms to make people fix their > broken packages.
I think you are misrepresenting the choice a bit here. If we aim for high quality in gentoo-x86 by avoiding deps like this I fear the choice will not be 'broken foo' or 'working foo' but instead 'broken foo' or 'no foo' as packages get masked and removed for not keeping up with the joneses. Don't get me wrong; I get the impression that there exist vast swaths of gentoo-x86 that are ...I'll use the term 'poorly maintained' and it would be good to get some of that stuff out. However I doubt our users would agree that this is necessarily 'better'. > > also, sci-mathematics/sage is a poor example here. it isn't in the main tree. > if people want to add poor packages to their overlays, they're free to. > -mike >
