Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a):

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote:
> > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> >> Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
> >> (Thank you!) [...]
> >> [0]  <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies>
> >
> > There's one more thing I'd like to ask about:
> >
> > For "Minor linking change w/ dependency change (unnecessary linking
> > removed)" the "dynamic deps" cell is red with "revbump + mostly
> > unnecessary rebuild", and "static deps" says "applied after rebuild".
> >
> > Arguably with dynamic deps one could also skip the revbump, and the
> > update would similarly be applied after rebuild.
>
> One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but
> can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))."  How can dynamically
> removing an "unused dependency" cause something to break, setting
> aside bugs in the package manager?  If removing a dependency causes
> something to break, how can it be "unused?"

Consider the following:

1. A depends on B, both are installed,

2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B thanks
to dynamic-deps,

3. B is treecleaned (nothing depends on it),

4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't update it yet), therefore
dependency on B is restored from vdb.

So, now user has package A installed which has unsatisfied dependency
on non-available package.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny