1 |
On 22 July 2014 19:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
4 |
> > Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. |
5 |
> > (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible |
6 |
> > solutions. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > [0] <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Thank you, this is very useful. I didn't understand the issue much |
11 |
> before reading that page. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> One question: why for "Removal of a USE flag along with the relevant |
14 |
> dependencies" dynamic deps say "revbump + unnecessary rebuild"? What |
15 |
> would happen without the revbump? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > 1. Improve dynamic-deps. This is, as Michał pointed out earlier in |
18 |
> > this thread a pipe dream. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Agreed. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> > 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> +1 I also think it's the best option. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Paweł |
27 |
> |
28 |
> |
29 |
Ok, we can side step this discussion partially: |
30 |
|
31 |
Lets pretend for a moment dynamic deps get banned. |
32 |
|
33 |
People will still unconsciously make that mistake and things will still |
34 |
break when they do. |
35 |
|
36 |
So we'll probably need a repoman check that is smart enough to know "X is |
37 |
modified" and compare the DEPEND fields with the previous incarnation prior |
38 |
to commit, and then at very least, warn people doing `repoman full` that |
39 |
they've modified the dependencies, and that a -r1 bump is thus highly |
40 |
recommended. |
41 |
|
42 |
And that check can be added *now* prior to banning/disabling dynamic deps. |
43 |
|
44 |
And people who want to pay attention to that warning can start doing it |
45 |
before policy dictates they must. |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Kent |
50 |
|
51 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |