| 1 |
Il giorno sab 26 ott 2019 alle ore 06:24 Michael Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz> |
| 2 |
ha scritto: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 26/10/19 04:59, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:03:39 -0700 |
| 6 |
> > Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> not used anymore |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/695698 |
| 11 |
> >> Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Its likely this removal will cause the same kinds of problems faced by |
| 14 |
> > the recent virtual/pam removal, just its more insidious, as the |
| 15 |
> > dependency on the virtual is hidden away inside an eclass. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > But this still means that anything users have already installed will |
| 18 |
> > still depend on this, and without --changed-deps=y, it will break |
| 19 |
> > portage's resolution of anything currently installed using this crate. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > You can work-around this by -r1 bumping everything that used this |
| 22 |
> > eclass .... but this just goes to show why there's policy against |
| 23 |
> > eclasses changing the dependencies of their consumers without any |
| 24 |
> > consumer involvement. |
| 25 |
> tl;dr - play with fire .. you're gonna get burned .. :] |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Good luck with the core aim .. there is probably a slow-and-steady approach |
| 28 |
> that will win through .. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> So basically the eclass should be bumped, with the old one deprecated? |
Archives