| 1 |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:59:01 +0200 |
| 2 |
Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > The ASAP behavior seems relatively optimal, which makes it |
| 6 |
> > difficult to argue that ebuild maintainers should have to go to the |
| 7 |
> > trouble of creating virtuals and updating reverse dependencies. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Yes it is and I agree, but the point here is that PMS doesn't say |
| 10 |
> anything about it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
...because there's no guarantee that it will work, and because if it's |
| 13 |
enforced rather than an optional extra that may be ignored, then there |
| 14 |
will be no way of implementing a correct dependency resolver. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I would rather want to see it becoming mandatory by PMS, also. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Not possible. ASAP is a heuristic, not a rule. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives