Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:34:22
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Alexander Berntsen
1 On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Alexander Berntsen
2 <bernalex@g.o> wrote:
3 >
4 > dynamic dependencies is a bug. We decided to fix this regression. I
5 > don't think this is a council issue.
6 >
8 So, I realize there is a bit of a fine line in the
9 telling-contributors-how-to-contribute department here. To some
10 extent how portage is developed is up to the portage project (though
11 anybody who wants to could always fork it and add yet another package
12 manager to the tree).
14 What really does fall into the Council's domain strongly is PMS and
15 tree policy. If we have the tree target a package manger that does
16 not support dynamic dependencies, then we would want to do revbumps
17 anytime dependencies change (new virtuals, eclass upgrades, etc). If
18 we target a package manager that does do dynamic dependencies then we
19 probably would want to forbid revbumps on such changes, which of
20 course would tend to break things for anybody using a package manager
21 that didn't support dynamic dependencies.
23 So, this is more than just a portage design question, and I think it
24 is fair for the Council to take up. Obviously the feelings of the
25 portage maintainers should be carefully considered.
27 So, not trying to take a position pro/con in this email. I just
28 wanted to state that I think this is something with wide-ranging
29 impact and more than just a portage issue.
31 Rich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o>