1 |
On 9 August 2014 01:12, Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Most of the maintainers just depend on new |
4 |
> packages not knowing if it's necessary or not resulting in a really HUGE |
5 |
> update that in the absolute majority of cases destabilize GENTOO making it |
6 |
> not operational and WORSE than it was before. You then STABILIZE it again |
7 |
> spending hours and then the story repeats itself. |
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
Some of your assumptions seem misguided. |
11 |
|
12 |
Some cases, dependencies are forward specifications from upstream telling |
13 |
us what their software needs to function properly. Failing to meet that |
14 |
requirement could void our support warranty from upstream. |
15 |
|
16 |
Likewise, using 'nodeps' voids your support warranty from gentoo. |
17 |
|
18 |
And just because "it works for me" that doesn't mean its not broken, it |
19 |
just means you've not encountered the broken scenario that the dependencies |
20 |
exist to guard against. |
21 |
|
22 |
Very often upstream will discover a case where X doesn't work in 10% of the |
23 |
problem space. |
24 |
|
25 |
There's no way to communicate to a user what you will and will not do with |
26 |
the software, so its impossible to know what flaws you will and won't |
27 |
encounter, so the dependencies thus declare a minimum for expected working |
28 |
behaviour for *all* a software's functionality, not just your user-specific |
29 |
subset. |
30 |
|
31 |
If you wish to override that decision, you may, but your self-supporting |
32 |
from that point on. |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
TL;DR = just because it works /for you/, doesn't mean it /isn't broken/ and |
36 |
doesn't mean the minimum declaration is "unnecessary" for all users. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Kent |
42 |
|
43 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |