| 1 |
Ian Stakenvicius: |
| 2 |
> Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited) |
| 3 |
> profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make |
| 4 |
> whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. So |
| 5 |
> realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work out a |
| 6 |
> better solution to dynamic deps (something that will failover nicely |
| 7 |
> for PMs that don't support dynamic deps) or perhaps adding more |
| 8 |
> functions to support VDB updating via profiles/updates/ |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Am I off-base here? Thoughts? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, as was already explained. Those are currently just dreams or |
| 15 |
abstract thoughts. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g. when |
| 18 |
subslots are in use), optional and not defined in PMS. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
People really don't seem to understand what is going on here. We rely on |
| 21 |
behavior that depends not only on a portage specific feature, but also |
| 22 |
on the context and can pretty much be considered undefined. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I guess I have to repost |
| 25 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Dynamic deps don't work for you, even if you think that. Coming up with |
| 28 |
an alternative approach will probably take a lot of effort and shouldn't |
| 29 |
be considered a blocker to fix a fundamental bug in dependency |
| 30 |
calculation, which is already broken in portage in many ways. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If we already bikeshed about one of the simplest ways to improve |
| 33 |
dependency calculation, I wonder what will happen if someone wants to |
| 34 |
actually fix it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps support |
| 37 |
(or similar) should: |
| 38 |
* write a PMS patch and get it merged |
| 39 |
* join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of yelling |
| 40 |
at them |
Archives