| 1 |
On 7/27/14, 4:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> With dynamic deps you'd need to revbump if there is a linking change. |
| 3 |
> Otherwise portage would just allow the dependency to be removed, and |
| 4 |
> then linking will break, since the executable is unnecessarily linked |
| 5 |
> to the dependency (in that scenario). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Right, I see - I think I got that right when first reading this, but got |
| 8 |
confused after reading so many messages in this thread. Thanks for |
| 9 |
patient explanation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency resolution. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but |
| 14 |
> can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))." How can dynamically |
| 15 |
> removing an "unused dependency" cause something to break, setting |
| 16 |
> aside bugs in the package manager? If removing a dependency causes |
| 17 |
> something to break, how can it be "unused?" |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yeah, I was also wondering about this. |
Archives