| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 28 July 2014 02:42, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but |
| 6 |
>> can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))." How can dynamically |
| 7 |
>> removing an "unused dependency" cause something to break, setting |
| 8 |
>> aside bugs in the package manager? If removing a dependency causes |
| 9 |
>> something to break, how can it be "unused?" |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> My apologies if this scenario has been explained before, I saw things along |
| 13 |
> these lines, but must may have missed their point: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I get the impression that this happens: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 1. User installs Foo |
| 18 |
> 2. Gentoo needs to change what Foo depends on |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Why? Is this about removing an unused dependency? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 3. Gentoo simply tweaks the ebuild and doesn't bump [A] |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What is "[A]?" What ebuild was tweaked, and how was it tweaked? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> 8. Shadowing effect of [A] is removed, and Foo is now back depending on the |
| 27 |
> wrong thing. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What do you mean by "shadowing effect?" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
You need to be a bit more clear on your scenario here. I'm not really |
| 32 |
getting much out of your example. My question was how can removing an |
| 33 |
unused dependency break things. I'm not sure if your example includes |
| 34 |
an unused dependency, whether it was removed, and whether it breaks |
| 35 |
anything. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives