1 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>> > - have you looked into the preseved-libs feature of Portage-2.2? you may |
3 |
>> > want to at least refer to it in your proposal |
4 |
>> Yes, I met with it from the user's side. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Improve your proposal, and just add a single sentence (or two) on it, |
7 |
> with your statement below. |
8 |
> |
9 |
>> For example, when I install a |
10 |
>> new linux kernel, I need to recompile virtualbox-modules, when I |
11 |
>> update perl of python, I need to recompile all perl or python modules |
12 |
>> manually. |
13 |
|
14 |
I think the biggest impact of identifying dependencies is discovering |
15 |
when they're missing entirely. |
16 |
|
17 |
There are many libraries that are commonly installed but aren't |
18 |
strictly part of the system set. An ebuild might get into the wild |
19 |
that misses a dependency on one of these libraries but not be caught |
20 |
in testing, since it doesn't break most of the time. Maybe it depends |
21 |
on something that depends on the library, which means that it will |
22 |
work until the day that the dependent package's dependencies change. |
23 |
|
24 |
This is probably something likely to start a bit of a war and need not |
25 |
be settled now, but if dependencies can be automatically managed, then |
26 |
perhaps it would even make sense to make all dependencies explicit |
27 |
(including those in the system set). Not really relevant to the |
28 |
proposal and probably a discussion for another time once it isn't a |
29 |
moot point. |
30 |
|
31 |
Rich |