Bug 10012 – [RFE] qpkg remplacement for reverse deps with versions

• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
• Product: Portage Development

[Description Olivier Crete (RETIRED) 2002-10-31 09:19:23 UTC]

I have an ebuild (xcdroast) that specifies that it wants a certain version of a
package (<=app-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.33). But when I do "qpkg -q cdrtools", I get
the following, which is obviously wrong. qpkg should check for version
specification correctly.

pp-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.39 *
DEPENDED ON BY:
        app-cdr/gtoaster-1.0_beta6
        app-cdr/xcdroast-0.98_alpha10-r2
app-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.29
DEPENDED ON BY:
        app-cdr/gtoaster-1.0_beta6
        app-cdr/xcdroast-0.98_alpha10-r2
app-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.30
DEPENDED ON BY:
        app-cdr/gtoaster-1.0_beta6
        app-cdr/xcdroast-0.98_alpha10-r2
app-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.34
DEPENDED ON BY:
        app-cdr/gtoaster-1.0_beta6
        app-cdr/xcdroast-0.98_alpha10-r2
app-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.39
DEPENDED ON BY:
        app-cdr/gtoaster-1.0_beta6
        app-cdr/xcdroast-0.98_alpha10-r2
app-cdr/cdrtools-1.11.33
DEPENDED ON BY:
        app-cdr/gtoaster-1.0_beta6
        app-cdr/xcdroast-0.98_alpha10-r2

[Comment 1 Karl Trygve Kalleberg (RETIRED) 2002-10-31 15:56:37 UTC]

I think this is your area of expertise, Brandon :)

[Comment 2 Brandon Low (RETIRED) 2002-10-31 16:02:03 UTC]

probably not, qpkg is getting old, the -q is really just a rudimentary check...

but I will look into it... btw, why on earth does xcdroast dep on a specific
version of cdrtools?

[Comment 3 Brandon Low (RETIRED) 2002-10-31 16:06:00 UTC]

yeah, qpkg by it's nature just isn't capable of checking for dep ranges, so it
just checks package names.

[Comment 4 Olivier Crete (RETIRED) 2002-10-31 17:25:03 UTC]

Then I'll transform it into a RFE... for something that tells me what version is
depended on by what app... Basicly qpkg -q with version... or the reverse of
"emerge -e --onlydeps"

[Comment 5 Brandon Low (RETIRED) 2002-11-02 12:24:49 UTC]

SPanKy: Hasn't someone written something like this epm and how complete is it,
can it be finished to fully take over what qpkg currently does?

[Comment 6 Brandon Low (RETIRED) 2002-11-03 03:20:53 UTC]

hmm... I really don't want this bug, because I'm not competant to fix it...
someone please take it.

[Comment 7 Karl Trygve Kalleberg (RETIRED) 2002-11-11 10:28:39 UTC]

Ideally, Portage should have a well-designed query-interface that we could base
qpkg, epm, pdb, pkg-clean, dep-clean and the other neatness utils on, but sadly
it doesn't yet.

When (if ever) such an interface materialises (any year now, the Portage team
tells me), we're going to move all our utils over to that, but it's very
low-prio atm.

[Comment 8 Karl Trygve Kalleberg (RETIRED) 2003-05-03 08:30:49 UTC]

We're going to deprecate qpkg soon; requests for improvements should go towards the replacement tools (no names chosen yet).