| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/24/2018 12:15 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/23/2018 07:40 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> |
| 5 |
>>>> Did you come up with a solution how to handle eclass-generated dependency |
| 6 |
>>>> changes then? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> No. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Bug #641346 was filed for clarification about this, but it just got |
| 11 |
>>> closed without answering the question or consulting anyone. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Now, every time we want to make a minor change we need to revbump half |
| 14 |
>>> the tree due to a change that has been forced mostly by people not |
| 15 |
>>> actually involved in any actual ebuild maintenance. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> You could always set "--dynamic-deps y" on your machine, and ignore the |
| 18 |
>> breakage caused to end users (i.e. the situation last week). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> You mean the breakage caused by changing default options without any |
| 21 |
> consultation or notification? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It would already be broken on any PMS-compliant package manager I |
| 25 |
imagine. The goal is to make the repo and PMS align so that we're not |
| 26 |
depending on non-PMS behavior. Either our ebuild policies ought to |
| 27 |
change, or PMS ought to change. It is dumb to publish a specification |
| 28 |
and then deliberately do things that break software that follows that |
| 29 |
specification. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives