| 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 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 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). |
| 13 |
|
| 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. |
| 22 |
|
| 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. |
| 26 |
|
| 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. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives