| 1 |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 +0000 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be |
| 4 |
> > fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an |
| 5 |
> > idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they |
| 6 |
> > understand why it's wrong... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I was rather talking about the "fix useless rebuilds" issue. It's a |
| 9 |
> valid point. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It's like saying "OK, the house is on fire, but I really like the |
| 12 |
wallpaper, so we should just stay in the building"... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> What would you suggest? Can the VDB be fixed in another way to avoid |
| 15 |
> such rebuilds? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are ways of doing it, if you're prepared to make ebuild authors |
| 18 |
put in an awful lot of work for very little gain. But it shouldn't be a |
| 19 |
priority, and we need to fix existing breakages before doing something |
| 20 |
ambitious like that. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives