| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:38 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." |
| 2 |
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 7/30/14, 7:36 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
>> If it's 2-3 packages out of ~300, I'd rather pick them out than |
| 5 |
>> revision bump all ~300 for the 2-3. Or not pick them out at all |
| 6 |
>> and let users do the rebuild (which is the obvious answer |
| 7 |
>> to the output you posted) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Peter Stuge pointed it out already, but I also wanted to say rebuilding |
| 10 |
> the affected packages is not obvious to me either. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Sure, but this seems more like a portage bug (or at least a portage |
| 13 |
output bug) rather than a fundamental issue. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
After all, there was no true block - just a need for a rebuild. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I heard prerm as a reason why dynamic deps can break (especially with |
| 18 |
slot operator deps, though obviously it also breaks for |
| 19 |
non-slot-operator deps that should be expressed as such), though as |
| 20 |
has been pointed out those will break unless we unmerge and remerge |
| 21 |
all reverse-deps on every upgrade. Are there other issues. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
To be honest I was expecting a plethora of issues that can go wrong |
| 24 |
with dynamic deps, but so far I'm hearing something like 2-3, and if |
| 25 |
that really is all that there is then this may be a solvable issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives