Re: [gentoo-dev] Dynamic dependencies

[hasufell]

On 09/16/2015 05:49 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary:
>
>> Dynamic dependencies in Portage
>> ===============================
>> During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to
>> dependencies in eclasses, could require mass rebuilds of packages.
>>
>> Vote:
>> - "The council asks the Portage team to first outline their long-term
>>   plan regarding removal or replacement of dynamic dependencies,
>>   before they remove this feature. In particular, tree policies and
>>   the handling of eclasses and virtuals need to be clarified."
>>   Accepted unanimously.
>
> Since there seems to be interest in the Portage team to go ahead with that
> plan, I'd like to ask about the tree policies and the handling of eclasses and
> virtuals.
>
> I guess we'd appreciate this as a prerequisite for being able to give the plan
> future council support.
>

I'm against it, because I would...
* not be able to depend on portage specific behavior anymore
* not be able to break the dep-graph for portage users who disable
dynamic dependencies (and even those who don't)
* not be able to break the dep-graph for paludis users
* be forced to actually write ebuilds that comply to PMS
* have to care about correctness of dependencies
* have to do some work, actually
* have to listen to people like PMS and PM authors, but I am smarter

Instead we should...
* start another thread of ~100 mails where PM authors have to repeatedly
explain the problem to every single developer
* let the council dictate over 3-liner devmanual patches that are merely
expressions of the current PMS standard
* piss off everyone who was even remotely thinking of working on this
(there's no one anymore, so maybe this point can be omitted)