1 |
On 07/29/2014 07:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
3 |
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
4 |
> to discuss or vote on. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
7 |
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
8 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2014-08-05. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Ulrich |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
I am disappointed that the Portage team declined to bring the issue of |
18 |
disabling dynamic dependencies to the Council's attention themselves. |
19 |
Thus, I must request the Council to consider the Portage team's recent |
20 |
decision[1] in this matter. |
21 |
|
22 |
If we are to change our default dependency model, we need to do it |
23 |
properly - we need wider consensus, more open discussion of what's |
24 |
happening, and a proper plan of how to handle the pitfalls of the new |
25 |
model. Otherwise, we're just trading one set of problems for another. |
26 |
|
27 |
Specifically, I request the Council block the removal of dynamic |
28 |
dependencies until the following issues are resolved: |
29 |
|
30 |
1. Although there has been considerable discussion[2] regarding dynamic |
31 |
dependencies in general, there has been no specific discussion regarding |
32 |
their actual removal. |
33 |
|
34 |
2. The Portage team had made no announcement of their decision, nor do |
35 |
they apparently intend to until 30 days prior to a new Portage release. |
36 |
This is not adequate time for such a substantial change. |
37 |
|
38 |
3. Few of the Portage team members were present[3] for the meeting, and |
39 |
no vote was held to reach the decision. |
40 |
|
41 |
4. While there is a good description of the theoretical issues affecting |
42 |
both dependency models[4], multiple requests for specific examples of |
43 |
in-tree breakage have been ignored. This makes it difficult to assess |
44 |
the actual breakage that removing dynamic dependencies is supposed to |
45 |
address. |
46 |
|
47 |
5. The removal plan doesn't consider the impact from increased number of |
48 |
rebuilds due to revbumps containing only dependency changes. Without |
49 |
replacement functionality, widespread virtual or slot changes can cause |
50 |
hundreds of packages to be rebuilt. |
51 |
|
52 |
[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/4351 |
53 |
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92030 |
54 |
[3]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Meetings#Past_Meetings |
55 |
[4]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies |