| 1 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:06:45 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/02/2017 11:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 03/02/2017 02:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> |
| 7 |
> >>> This is why we can't have nice things. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> For those that are interested, I'm planning to to make --with-bdeps |
| 10 |
> >> automatically enabled when possible: |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I agree with this ^ but I don't think portage should rebuild for |
| 15 |
> > DEPEND at all. It creates one more dangerous "it works in portage!" |
| 16 |
> > situation that will plague users of other package managers. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > (I'm not saying it couldn't be useful, but it should go in the next |
| 19 |
> > EAPI if we're gonna do it.) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> PMS doesn't specify when rebuilds are supposed to be triggered. You |
| 22 |
> can consider the rebuilds as a means to satisfy the dependencies. |
| 23 |
> Saying that the package manager should not make an effort to satisfy |
| 24 |
> dependencies would be silly. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And then have a nice ref. implementation for next EAPI. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Having barely tested (*) features set in stone at each EAPI bump is even |
| 31 |
more dangerous than the "it works in portage!" situations IMHO. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
(*) I'm not saying features are not tested, but those that have |
| 35 |
been thrown at users for years are much more mature than the |
| 36 |
brand new ones in comparison. |
Archives