| 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 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 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. |
| 22 |
|
| 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. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives