| 1 |
On 07/04/14 17:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:54:43 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> You can get me to change mind by writing up a policy that says |
| 5 |
>> dynamic deps can't be relied upon, and getting rest of the QA |
| 6 |
>> team, perhaps council, on board with it. |
| 7 |
> They can't be relied upon: they stop working as soon as you remove an |
| 8 |
> ebuild from the tree when the user still has that version installed. |
| 9 |
> They also don't work if you make changes to runtime dependencies that |
| 10 |
> need a reinstall or upgrade, as has happened with various -config |
| 11 |
> utilities. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Of course if reinstall or upgrade is required, then revision bump is |
| 15 |
issued as normal. |
| 16 |
If the version isn't anymore in Portage, then user will be upgrading |
| 17 |
into one that is anyway, and |
| 18 |
the problem becomes moot. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm aware it's not perfect, but it's the best we have. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm also aware of Paludis having more issues with it, than Portage, |
| 23 |
IIRC, which is really irrelevant since |
| 24 |
Portage is the official PM. No, this is not a flamebait, and I feel |
| 25 |
like apologizing to you already, but that's just how I see it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm arguing that working around the PM bug(s) by enforcing "a useless" |
| 28 |
rebuilds for everyone, is not the solution. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
- Samuli |
Archives