1 |
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 28 July 2014 09:34, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> and if it doesn't work for them, |
6 |
>> they'll sync in the updates one way or another (using an overlay if |
7 |
>> necessary). |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> However, in the case the package gets removed from tree, an updates based |
11 |
> approach would allow the dependencies to be cleaned up long after the |
12 |
> package itself is gone. |
13 |
|
14 |
Maybe, but is it really our goal to fix broken packages that aren't |
15 |
even maintained any longer? The latest version of the package will |
16 |
always be in cvs/etc and users can always go fetch it, but do we need |
17 |
a special updates mechanism simply for the purpose of fixing packages |
18 |
that we've already decided are unsustainable? |
19 |
|
20 |
If an updates-like approach is the best approach for active packages, |
21 |
then I'd consider the side-benefit to treecleaned ones as being |
22 |
beneficial. However, I wouldn't really view this as a primary |
23 |
concern. At least, that is my sense of it right now. The primary |
24 |
focus needs to be on making dynamic deps work in a sensible way for |
25 |
active packages, which we're apparently having problems with already. |
26 |
|
27 |
Rich |