You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Unfortunately, since Portage maintainers have historically preferred to add ugly hacks over fixing ebuilds, Portage currently pretends that "pure RDEPEND" cycles aren't there. It would be nice if pkgcheck tries to detect at least unconditional cycles, e.g. A unconditionally RDEP on B, B on C, C on A, and requested developers to use PDEPEND in order to achieve predictable merge order.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Unfortunately, since Portage maintainers have historically preferred to add ugly hacks over fixing ebuilds, Portage currently pretends that "pure RDEPEND" cycles aren't there.
Unfortunately, since Portage maintainers have historically preferred to add ugly hacks over fixing ebuilds, Portage currently pretends that "pure RDEPEND" cycles aren't there. It would be nice if pkgcheck tries to detect at least unconditional cycles, e.g. A unconditionally RDEP on B, B on C, C on A, and requested developers to use PDEPEND in order to achieve predictable merge order.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: