Summary: | portage should handle upgrading to split packages | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Michal Suchanek <hramrach> |
Component: | Core - Dependencies | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Michal Suchanek
2006-05-26 06:26:08 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 79606 *** I'm not sure if this is a duplicate. In the other bug the problem is the order in which the packages are merged. Here the problem can be solved only by uninstalling a package because portage does not know something like replacing packages. In debian, libmp4v2 would replace (faad2 << someversion) so that the mp4v2 libraries in faad2 are replaced with those in libmp4v2, and are then owned by libmp4v2. faad2 would still own the other libraries, and they would get updaed when the new faad2 is installed. it is a dupe, as the other bug is basically a 'portage sucks at blocker handling'. it's really just different effects of the same underlying problem. (In reply to comment #3) > it is a dupe, as the other bug is basically a 'portage sucks at blocker > handling'. it's really just different effects of the same underlying problem. > the underlying problem being that the dependency resolver code should be smart enough to realize there is a simple workaround to the blockers. However the present resolver is rather dumb in this regard, and you get behavior such as this. |