1 |
Dnia 2014-07-22, o godz. 00:13:13 |
2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 21/07/14 23:56, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
> > Now... whether dynamic deps are technically the right thing to do is another |
7 |
> > question. It merits discussion, but we need to be really sure about the |
8 |
> > consequences of any change. |
9 |
> > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps |
10 |
> > are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're using |
11 |
> > half-working implementation as an excuse to be lazy. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> What's lazy is maintainer doing revision bump without thinking |
14 |
> if it's really required, spreading his laziness upon every users |
15 |
> machine (by triggering revision bump driven rebuild) |
16 |
|
17 |
Yes, users much more prefer random breakage over time. And debugging |
18 |
the issues save us a lot of time! |
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Best regards, |
22 |
Michał Górny |