| 1 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g. |
| 5 |
> > when subslots are in use) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Just to make it clear: No, dynamic deps are not broken. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Yes they are. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> What is broken is that portage does not use them consistently. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Because using them consistently is impossible by design. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> It would be a rather bad idea to change policy just because of this |
| 16 |
> portage bug and force users to permanently do unnecessary |
| 17 |
> recompilations. At least, for me, it would mean that I have |
| 18 |
> to change distribution, since I cannot afford this. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This is not a Portage bug. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > optional and not defined in PMS. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Static deps are also optional and not defined in PMS. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> In fact, PMS makes no claim *where* to read the DEP strings from; |
| 27 |
> it only specified how they are to be stored in the tree. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Incorrect. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Quite the opposite, PMS claims that one cannot rely on |
| 32 |
> anything stored in /var/db |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Incorrect. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives