| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 09/16/2015 09:21 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 09/16/2015 05:49 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hi all, |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>> Dynamic dependencies in Portage |
| 11 |
>>> =============================== During discussion, is was |
| 12 |
>>> remarked that some changes, e.g. to dependencies in eclasses, |
| 13 |
>>> could require mass rebuilds of packages. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> Vote: - "The council asks the Portage team to first outline |
| 16 |
>>> their long-term plan regarding removal or replacement of |
| 17 |
>>> dynamic dependencies, before they remove this feature. In |
| 18 |
>>> particular, tree policies and the handling of eclasses and |
| 19 |
>>> virtuals need to be clarified." Accepted unanimously. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Since there seems to be interest in the Portage team to go ahead |
| 22 |
>> with that plan, I'd like to ask about the tree policies and the |
| 23 |
>> handling of eclasses and virtuals. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> I guess we'd appreciate this as a prerequisite for being able to |
| 26 |
>> give the plan future council support. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I'm against it, because I would... * not be able to depend on |
| 30 |
> portage specific behavior anymore * not be able to break the |
| 31 |
> dep-graph for portage users who disable dynamic dependencies (and |
| 32 |
> even those who don't) * not be able to break the dep-graph for |
| 33 |
> paludis users * be forced to actually write ebuilds that comply to |
| 34 |
> PMS * have to care about correctness of dependencies * have to do |
| 35 |
> some work, actually * have to listen to people like PMS and PM |
| 36 |
> authors, but I am smarter |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Instead we should... * start another thread of ~100 mails where PM |
| 39 |
> authors have to repeatedly explain the problem to every single |
| 40 |
> developer * let the council dictate over 3-liner devmanual patches |
| 41 |
> that are merely expressions of the current PMS standard * piss off |
| 42 |
> everyone who was even remotely thinking of working on this (there's |
| 43 |
> no one anymore, so maybe this point can be omitted) |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
As a developer interested in adhering to the PMS, do we have a tool to |
| 47 |
check conformance beyond repoman? How would virtuals be handled with |
| 48 |
static dependencies? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
- -- |
| 51 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 52 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 53 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
| 54 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 55 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV+bErAAoJEAEkDpRQOeFwaM0QANan7U4hgyJk7GLhHriWerFP |
| 58 |
fisJ2yeBeXyzSu9N9XnGAcGKZcanYjvbZs/gLUwbwdGcFXgkxYYcHceh8k+6ZvlH |
| 59 |
LPpKy7j+0Af7l0Ooe1wToJ52pyeZZR0N1rKNYPWuY21i9mTHjXYmlX/m7gpAEkPP |
| 60 |
WBv/9JiJm9wLJ6rY66fjsBRU/FEyDumI+qv4/FLiIkKmquHDtYCgnryx/ERAXcoW |
| 61 |
XpA58zBa0FBQESNaQ1NbDutTJNPZpgtkCTwtMzZ8puO1EGggOrq9yKV6EROztA36 |
| 62 |
JfzJY4uAQjsaN/AKnULeAeoXBIstFmMvD3b+aeJCTFWLCPz1GVNcVunPjaRwMLCH |
| 63 |
MmwzbNMKf+JiBfTxgjWV0NSG3SMosv/e5B72BlvEW+wSTim6O6suSXcLtbkRrAqW |
| 64 |
kO/sBo1OqCvolBuvfnngS1/fqSloJjwyimp5utLdDrW212OS3kxaQSDCxeXfJce1 |
| 65 |
+5mXBSgCEzkBgb0oaZj6BQEcMjFXT9cq+Aa8yUTpPDXpB1el5ogTcWHBt8sQNZjV |
| 66 |
V1k0nfIBJqJMydFxsrE7GzaRxqwkptu6mn6A/6rt6mKUJtwWDMKdPKm9cmDa0Vrl |
| 67 |
al5moOiDJ1lS07AxPD6q2yjSjn/v3FZC7gh91HM0p+6xK90ttH9oHB3yivfE2DLL |
| 68 |
gKkJbCq9/tYV7li8hE7Q |
| 69 |
=83M7 |
| 70 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives