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 13:39:11
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Seemant Kulleen
1 On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@×××××.com> wrote:
2 >
3 > Are you saying you agree that the prerm example is a valid one, except for:
4 >
5 >>
6 >> likely to break with static deps the way it is implemented today (we
7 >> don't unmerge reverse-deps before upgrading the dep, which breaks
8 >> linking that might be required to unmerge the package in the first
9 >> place - though it probably only breaks 0.01% of the time and the cure
10 >> is likely worse than the disease).
11 >
12 >
13 > I got lost here. Are you invalidating the example or is this a more meta
14 > invalidating your invalidation?
15 >
16 > Surely a 99.9% valid example is pretty valid, or did I misinterpret?
17 >
19 I'm saying that the objection that was raised with prerm seems to be
20 equally broken with static dependencies, and can be fixed for static
21 and dynamic dependencies in the same way, as far as I can tell.
23 There is always the issue that if you add a new dependency it can
24 start out unmet, but the same is true with static dependencies, except
25 that the package manager doesn't even realize that it is unmet. That
26 is, with static dependencies the package manager gets a perfectly
27 consistent view of the universe, which is wrong and breaks in all the
28 cases where it would break with a dynamic dependency.
30 Rich