1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
5 |
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
6 |
> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> |
8 |
>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would be |
9 |
>> asking for trouble, imo. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> This entire sub thread reads like a dynamic dependencies |
12 |
> alternative in disguise, the difference lies in an increase of the |
13 |
> level of control and in the place where this then gets |
14 |
> reimplemented. |
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
It is. |
18 |
|
19 |
Here's the situation as I see it -- the portage tree needs to be |
20 |
consistent at snapshot time. But things can change all over the |
21 |
place, deps are moved, virtuals replace single or groups of atoms, |
22 |
packages get split, etc. etc. etc. |
23 |
|
24 |
Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited) |
25 |
profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make |
26 |
whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. So |
27 |
realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work out a |
28 |
better solution to dynamic deps (something that will failover nicely |
29 |
for PMs that don't support dynamic deps) or perhaps adding more |
30 |
functions to support VDB updating via profiles/updates/ |
31 |
|
32 |
Am I off-base here? Thoughts? |
33 |
|
34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
35 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
36 |
|
37 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPSbVgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBDpAEAnqx8hBGkmmiVGE6Pz7Rh+BE9 |
38 |
ed5KuWwihJdjPGjXdjoA/ifwGD8oUO8epWIq4rahW+egUFhklKtPu57jIYSjY90y |
39 |
=cZb0 |
40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |