1 |
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> As has been mentioned or alluded to before, this is fine as long as |
3 |
> end-users --sync when the dependency change is still in the tree. |
4 |
> However, if that doesn't happen then we still end up with the issue. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Of course, if that is the case, then #2 shouldn't happen either |
7 |
> (because the end-user system wouldn't see B as having been removed and |
8 |
> therefore --depclean won't remove it). |
9 |
|
10 |
Agree. Things stay consistent either way if everything is done properly. |
11 |
|
12 |
Bottom line is that if you keep PVs installed which aren't in portage, |
13 |
you're on your own. They could contain known bugs that we fixed in a |
14 |
revbump that you missed, or they could contain security issues that we |
15 |
don't bother to check for since we don't have the PV in our |
16 |
repository, etc. If you keep such a PV installed then you're the |
17 |
maintainer, so good luck! |
18 |
|
19 |
If a more recent version is in portage, then your old ebuild will |
20 |
probably uninstall cleanly (or at least as cleanly as it would with |
21 |
static deps), and the upgrade will hopefully be in better shape. |
22 |
|
23 |
Rich |