1 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> The thing about -rX.Y is that it allows this new-dynamic-deps thing |
4 |
>> to act like a regular rev bump to any PM that doesn't bother to |
5 |
>> implement it (or dynamic deps for that matter). Instant |
6 |
>> backwards-compatibility is a handy feature. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> ...but it doesn't actually solve the problem. |
9 |
|
10 |
Neither do revbumps. |
11 |
Both, dynamic and static deps are broken. |
12 |
They are broken in different ways, but both are broken. |
13 |
|
14 |
So the only reason which might justify changing the |
15 |
policy is that current portage *implementation* of |
16 |
dynamic deps is broken. |
17 |
|
18 |
However, if it should actually be decided to have |
19 |
some hundreds reemerges every week, at least this |
20 |
should be implemented in a way that it is not so |
21 |
time-consuming. |