Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:01:06
Message-Id: slrnlt79jd.9i1.martin@epidot.math.uni-rostock.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps by Ciaran McCreesh
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.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>