On 12/08/13 13:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
/var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does
As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted
implementation is recorded in the world file or not
Well, in my opinion, that just seems wrong. Why does it prefer udev, if
*neither* is in the world file?
Because it's the default in virtual/udev
(/usr/portage/virtual/udev/udev-206-r2.ebuild)
As in, sys-fs/udev is the default of Gentoo
In my opinion, it should be a 'B' blocker in both cases. It absolutely
should not automatically uninstall eudev and install udev, potentially
leaving the system in an unbootable state.
Portage doesn't work like that. If you step outside of the defaults, you
need to record them in your world. It's sort of the logical step to do.
But... as long as the conflict is there (for those who actually look
for such things) and I can deal with it appropriately - ie, if a small b
blocker and it wants to remove eudev and install udev, I just wait until
...
Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
virtual/udev? Or both?
When new version of sys-fs/udev is released with incompabilities with
sys-fs/eudev, then new virtual version is created and dependencies
inside of it set to compatible versions
And if there is no compatible version available, then the version is set
to non-existing future-version number that /will be/ compatible with it
Which is exactly what happened earlier and will happen again
- Samuli
