| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 25/07/14 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 7 |
>> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would |
| 10 |
>>> be asking for trouble, imo. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> This entire sub thread reads like a dynamic dependencies |
| 13 |
>> alternative in disguise, the difference lies in an increase of |
| 14 |
>> the level of control and in the place where this then gets |
| 15 |
>> reimplemented. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It is. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Here's the situation as I see it -- the portage tree needs to be |
| 21 |
> consistent at snapshot time. But things can change all over the |
| 22 |
> place, deps are moved, virtuals replace single or groups of atoms, |
| 23 |
> packages get split, etc. etc. etc. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited) |
| 26 |
> profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make |
| 27 |
> whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. |
| 28 |
> So realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work |
| 29 |
> out a better solution to dynamic deps (something that will failover |
| 30 |
> nicely for PMs that don't support dynamic deps) or perhaps adding |
| 31 |
> more functions to support VDB updating via profiles/updates/ |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Am I off-base here? Thoughts? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Ignore this, i should've read the rest of the thread first before posting. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPScN4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBS5gD+MXU3VUvwhp1u/0wIDHeXEQdX |
| 42 |
TmJXhvDhuhuE+7ehee0A/1HGASXipYsejfJxPesQFO4Egs1Yzj20PXlVmil9H8FY |
| 43 |
=WwNJ |
| 44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives