| 1 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream |
| 4 |
> defaults of portage, not tree policy. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
As I understand, they intend to remove non-dynamic deps |
| 7 |
(if they agreed to not implement it properly for sub-slots, |
| 8 |
this makes sense). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So we are not speaking about defaults but a fixed behaviour of |
| 11 |
portage. Paludis had this fixed behaviour since ever. |
| 12 |
Thus, esssentially, there is no other choice than to adopt the |
| 13 |
necessary tree policy to the only existing implementations - |
| 14 |
not council decision is needed for it unless there are package |
| 15 |
managers which do it differently. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Note that there can really be no exceptions. Even apparently |
| 18 |
trivial changes in DEPS like adding an alternative implementation |
| 19 |
*necessarily* require a revbump (because otherwise users who |
| 20 |
installed the previous ebuild could possibly never get rid |
| 21 |
of the original implementation). |
| 22 |
We will see a flood of "unnecessary" revbumps, but people |
| 23 |
knew this since the previous discussions. |
Archives