| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:06 AM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It's easy to say "well this is not an issue because it can be solved by |
| 4 |
> <thing no package manager does and is not part of the PMS>..." |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If it's easy, get it added to the PMS and I'll agree with you. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Current Gentoo policy: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
"Maintainers must not assume that dynamic dependencies will be applied |
| 12 |
by the package manager. When changing runtime dependencies the |
| 13 |
maintainer should revision the ebuild if the changes are likely to |
| 14 |
cause problems for end users." [1] |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Certainly having a discussion about whether this could change down the |
| 17 |
road is reasonable, but keep in mind this would require package |
| 18 |
managers to actually be changed, which requires code. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Out of the box portage has issues with dynamic deps[2] so it isn't a |
| 21 |
solved problem on any package manager, let alone all of them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In the interim, devs MUST revbump in these situations. The Council |
| 24 |
left some room for discretion, and as a result I end up having portage |
| 25 |
rebuild everything on changed deps because frankly I don't trust |
| 26 |
people to get it right, since if people can't see for themselves the |
| 27 |
reason for a rule it seems to be a reason to ignore it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The rule is also documented in the devmanual[3]. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
1 - https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20151011-summary.txt |
| 32 |
2 - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Changed_Deps#Ebuild_Revision_Bumps |
| 33 |
3 - https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/index.html |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives