| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:09:05 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency |
| 8 |
> >> resolution. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > It's actually very easy if you do away with all the things that are |
| 11 |
> > making it unnecessarily complicated... Nearly all of the complexity |
| 12 |
> > is self-inflicted. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages |
| 15 |
> without recompiling everything that depends on them? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Well that's never worked properly or consistently to begin with, so all |
| 18 |
we'd be doing away with is the pretence that we can get away with it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I do appreciate your argument, but at the same time for every complex |
| 21 |
> problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Unfortunately that's the answer Gentoo usually goes with. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> There are a lot of things in Gentoo that could be done in a simpler |
| 26 |
> fashion, and 10 years ago Gentoo was a lot simpler than it is today. |
| 27 |
> The thing is, all that complexity was added for a reason. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Most of that complexity was added due to "not thinking things through |
| 30 |
fully" and "adding in a short-term hack with long-term consequences". |
| 31 |
The reason was rarely "we need this complexity", and usually "we need |
| 32 |
something, and on the surface of it this looks like it solves exactly |
| 33 |
that something". |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives