1 |
On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 11:14 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 05:59 Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:03:39 -0700 |
5 |
> > Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > > not used anymore |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/695698 |
10 |
> > > Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Its likely this removal will cause the same kinds of problems faced by |
13 |
> > the recent virtual/pam removal, just its more insidious, as the |
14 |
> > dependency on the virtual is hidden away inside an eclass. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > But this still means that anything users have already installed will |
17 |
> > still depend on this, and without --changed-deps=y, it will break |
18 |
> > portage's resolution of anything currently installed using this crate. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > You can work-around this by -r1 bumping everything that used this |
21 |
> > eclass .... but this just goes to show why there's policy against |
22 |
> > eclasses changing the dependencies of their consumers without any |
23 |
> > consumer involvement. |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> |
26 |
> In most if not all cases, this is just a build-time dependency. Do we |
27 |
> really have all these problems for build-time only dependencies? |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Yes. Because of --with-bdeps. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Best regards, |
34 |
Michał Górny |