| 1 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Consider the following: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. A depends on B, both are installed, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B thanks |
| 8 |
> to dynamic-deps, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 3. B is treecleaned (nothing depends on it), |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't update it yet), therefore |
| 13 |
> dependency on B is restored from vdb. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So, now user has package A installed which has unsatisfied dependency |
| 16 |
> on non-available package. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
And this is per se not a bad situation: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The version of A which the user has installed is obsolete and needs |
| 21 |
to be upgraded. This happens with emerge -NDu @world which should |
| 22 |
be the first (portage-related) action the user does after syncing |
| 23 |
(certainly before removing packages with emerge depclean, as he is |
| 24 |
already instructed clearly). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
When he does not, it is a user error. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
When he insists on not updating A, he should have a very valid |
| 29 |
reason for this and take responsibility for the situation by |
| 30 |
maintaining A in his overlay: As already mentioned several times, |
| 31 |
it is impossible to handle unmaintained packages/versions correctly |
| 32 |
in all situations. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Whenever a package is removed or all available versions of a |
| 35 |
package[:slot] are masked and no update happens, portage *must* |
| 36 |
print a big fat warning, since this is a situation which can |
| 37 |
always lead to problematic situations - completely independent |
| 38 |
of whether dynamic deps or static deps are used. |
Archives