| 1 |
Martin Vaeth: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> But, OK, so I will use your strawman to prove |
| 4 |
>>> how static deps are broken: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> This is not broken. This is exactly what is supposed to happen |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> "It's not a bug it's a feature" |
| 9 |
> Of course, one can always close the eyes when faced |
| 10 |
> with problems. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> and it |
| 13 |
>> is exactly what *does* happen some of the time with dynamic |
| 14 |
>> dependencies too. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Yes, both concepts have problems. |
| 17 |
> Since neither solution is perfect, why choose the one |
| 18 |
> with unnecessary rebuilds? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You are not contributing anything useful to the thread currently. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Read the whole thread. Read up on dynamic deps. Read up on PMS. |
Archives