| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Hi all, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Dynamic dependencies in Portage |
| 8 |
>> =============================== |
| 9 |
>> During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to |
| 10 |
>> dependencies in eclasses, could require mass rebuilds of packages. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Vote: |
| 13 |
>> - "The council asks the Portage team to first outline their long-term |
| 14 |
>> plan regarding removal or replacement of dynamic dependencies, |
| 15 |
>> before they remove this feature. In particular, tree policies and |
| 16 |
>> the handling of eclasses and virtuals need to be clarified." |
| 17 |
>> Accepted unanimously. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Since there seems to be interest in the Portage team to go ahead with that |
| 20 |
> plan, I'd like to ask about the tree policies and the handling of eclasses and |
| 21 |
> virtuals. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'll go ahead and start a tangent on this thread right here. As a |
| 24 |
first step can we separately consider the proposal to require a |
| 25 |
revbump anytime a package's RDEPENDS changes? I'm referring here to |
| 26 |
directly-specified RDEPENDS, not those inherited from an eclass or |
| 27 |
virtual. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I agree completely that we need to solve the eclass and virtual issue |
| 30 |
and that is by far the stickier part of the mess. However, can we at |
| 31 |
least get ebuild authors to stop making changes to their RDEPENDS |
| 32 |
without revbumps? If nothing else that will hopefully provide some |
| 33 |
immediate relief to users with dependency breakage, and it doesn't |
| 34 |
entail the amount of mass-rebuilding you can potentially get with the |
| 35 |
eclass and virtual side of the problem. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
And I acknowledge that this is not my original idea... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives