| 1 |
On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 10:34 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:18:17AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:05:02 -0500 |
| 4 |
> > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > > If a build dep of something changes, the correct response with |
| 7 |
> > > --with-bdeps=y is to rebuild everything that depends on the changed dep. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Unfortunately, my learned experience of portage is the "correct |
| 10 |
> > response" is not something portage wants to do on its own without hand |
| 11 |
> > holding. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> One thing I've noticed is you say things that portage might do without |
| 14 |
> giving any specifics. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Let's go ahead and do the change and file bugs against portage if there |
| 17 |
> are issues. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The whole point of PMS/EAPI is that we can rely on package managers |
| 21 |
behaving reasonably for any input. Any package managers, in any |
| 22 |
version. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You seem to be suggesting going in the opposite direction of making |
| 25 |
newest Portage version handle bad input. Using old version? Tough |
| 26 |
luck. Using another package manager? Tough luck. Not fitting |
| 27 |
in narrow space of solutions currently hacked around? Tough luck. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives