Summary: | Inconsistency in reloads when using sets | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Michał Górny <mgorny> |
Component: | Core - Interface (emerge) | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | minor | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Michał Górny
2010-09-18 07:08:12 UTC
I get the feeling that you're trying to solve some kind of problem without telling us what the problem is, and instead you're just telling us that the problem is "inconsistency". So, what's wrong with being "inconsistent"? I'm simply solving the problem other way as I didn't like my original idea :P. But the facts are still facts. If we're supposed to re-evaluate the sets completely because the expansion result might differ between portage versions, we should do that even if the set currently evaluated to portage only. (In reply to comment #2) > If we're supposed to re-evaluate the sets completely because the expansion > result might differ between portage versions, we should do that even if the set > currently evaluated to portage only. That's not the motivation for re-evaluation of sets. The set re-evaluation is merely a side-effect from portage needing to reload itself. When it reloads itself, it has to create a dependency graph because otherwise it wouldn't have a dependency graph to work with, and set evaluation is part of dependency graph creation. |