1 |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:44:25 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> As was pointed out, portage prerm is broken with both dynamic and |
4 |
> static deps |
5 |
|
6 |
No: prerm is only broken with static dependencies if either a developer |
7 |
screws up, or there's a bug in the package mangler. But with dynamic |
8 |
dependencies, prerm is broken by design. |
9 |
|
10 |
> I don't think that is a huge issue in practice, but I've yet to hear |
11 |
> an example of anything which is. |
12 |
|
13 |
The ruby-config issue was real. But the bigger issue is: Portage's |
14 |
dependency resolver simply doesn't work, and most of the time when it |
15 |
goes wrong you don't realise what the root cause is. A proper fix is |
16 |
needed for this, and the way to do that is to remove all the |
17 |
unnecessary complexity. Dynamic dependencies are one example of these: |
18 |
they're *only* necessary if developers are in the habit of screwing up. |
19 |
|
20 |
> The problem is that not all agree that dynamic dependencies are a bug. |
21 |
|
22 |
It's a simple matter of fact... You can disagree about what kind of |
23 |
cheese the moon is made of, but that doesn't change the fact that it's |
24 |
made of Cheddar. |
25 |
|
26 |
> > Tree policy, I'm afraid, has to adapt to Portage; not the other way |
27 |
> > around. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> The reality is that both portage and the tree policy need to adapt to |
30 |
> the needs of the community, otherwise there won't be anybody around |
31 |
> maintaining either. |
32 |
|
33 |
This is about looking at the long term needs of the community, not the |
34 |
short term needs. The current situation is a mess: Portage gives |
35 |
incorrect resolutions, incomprehensible error messages, and sometimes |
36 |
randomly and non-reproducibly uninstalls bash for unknown reasons, and |
37 |
fully fixing this requires improvements to the quality of the data |
38 |
provided by ebuild writers. |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Ciaran McCreesh |