| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:31 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I'm eager to hear how you want to make subslots work with dynamic deps. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> := gets converted to :${SLOT}/${SUBSLOT} in vardb and this is used to |
| 6 |
> trigger the rebuilds. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> How do you record the subslot a package was built against in the live tree? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, suppose the dependency is removed because it never was a true |
| 12 |
dependency to begin with. Portage can handle this by deleting the |
| 13 |
corresponding entry from vardb. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That is a dynamic dependency change, and offhand I don't see how it |
| 16 |
breaks with subslots. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This is why we have to be careful about tossing around phrases like |
| 19 |
"dynamic deps don't work" - they don't work in particular |
| 20 |
circumstances, and it is helpful to the discussion if we try to |
| 21 |
characterize when they do/don't work rather than painting with broad |
| 22 |
strokes. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I do think that this needs some attention so that we can make portage |
| 25 |
more predictable, but I think the argument has been made that we have |
| 26 |
a LOT of changes in the tree today which don't involve revbumps, and |
| 27 |
turning them into revbumps could cause a lot of turmoil for users. |
| 28 |
So, I'm interested in seeing if there is a better compromise to be |
| 29 |
found. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives