| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 05:59 Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:03:39 -0700 |
| 4 |
> Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > not used anymore |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/695698 |
| 9 |
> > Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Its likely this removal will cause the same kinds of problems faced by |
| 13 |
> the recent virtual/pam removal, just its more insidious, as the |
| 14 |
> dependency on the virtual is hidden away inside an eclass. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> But this still means that anything users have already installed will |
| 17 |
> still depend on this, and without --changed-deps=y, it will break |
| 18 |
> portage's resolution of anything currently installed using this crate. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> You can work-around this by -r1 bumping everything that used this |
| 21 |
> eclass .... but this just goes to show why there's policy against |
| 22 |
> eclasses changing the dependencies of their consumers without any |
| 23 |
> consumer involvement. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In most if not all cases, this is just a build-time dependency. Do we |
| 27 |
really have all these problems for build-time only dependencies? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
Archives