1 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:40:40 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
> > Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the place |
4 |
> > where you "proved" how dynamic dependencies still work in the face |
5 |
> > of ebuild removals. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> *Neither* dynamic deps nor static deps solve this problem satisfactory |
8 |
> (How often did I repeat this now?). |
9 |
|
10 |
With static dependencies, you have correct dependency information, and |
11 |
the worst that can happen is occasionally you might have to rebuild a |
12 |
package where nothing substantial has changed. However, this is a |
13 |
general issue with bumps (recompiling the whole thing for an init |
14 |
script or language file change, recompiling the whole thing for a change |
15 |
to only one of the binaries provided by a package, and so on), so it is |
16 |
not a "static dependencies" problem. |
17 |
|
18 |
With dynamic dependencies, you have incorrect dependency information, |
19 |
your system randomly breaks on a sync, you sometimes can't uninstall |
20 |
packages due to pkg_* breakage, uninstalling a package sometimes looks |
21 |
safe but isn't, overlays don't work, subslots don't work, binaries |
22 |
don't work, and dependencies can appear to be met when they aren't. |
23 |
|
24 |
So in summary, dynamic dependencies are broken, and static dependencies |
25 |
are correct, and the only issue you think you have with static |
26 |
dependencies isn't a problem specific to static dependencies and isn't |
27 |
reliably solved by dynamic dependencies. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |