From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42B313877A for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA797E0C1B; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC948E0BE6 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot.lan (77-253-192-104.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.192.104]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F248433FFF1; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:22:48 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-2?B?TWljaGGzIEfzcm55?= To: Samuli Suominen Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps Message-ID: <20140721232248.1f0d0e44@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <53CD8269.3050808@gentoo.org> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140721225642.56aee8ed@pomiot.lan> <53CD8269.3050808@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/+.5RN_1FKyHiXf7VpAw9sFk"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: c553f457-3632-41c5-9495-6b446dd9e980 X-Archives-Hash: 7086fd1afdae7fc420a5709bd3b83ee0 --Sig_/+.5RN_1FKyHiXf7VpAw9sFk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2014-07-22, o godz. 00:13:13 Samuli Suominen napisa=B3(a): >=20 > On 21/07/14 23:56, Micha=B3 G=F3rny wrote: > > Now... whether dynamic deps are technically the right thing to do is an= other=20 > > question. It merits discussion, but we need to be really sure about the= =20 > > consequences of any change. > > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps > > are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're using > > half-working implementation as an excuse to be lazy. >=20 > What's lazy is maintainer doing revision bump without thinking > if it's really required, spreading his laziness upon every users > machine (by triggering revision bump driven rebuild) Yes, users much more prefer random breakage over time. And debugging the issues save us a lot of time! --=20 Best regards, Micha=B3 G=F3rny --Sig_/+.5RN_1FKyHiXf7VpAw9sFk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJTzYSoXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOJrgQAKvD2CoO410+MyxgBfNpV4JC b0LRFP+gNMETglI0QPIv9/qWN/Wr8bAYe9oE6YH/IuhFr5tpwflCStTknv/BbnUt cSE/ECFsu3kbd4bU/mXSwSLsSdyX7TYk/MJflrvl+h+e0fB2tjxi/S+zS5+/65FP H3Mlpr9huT9p4/L4t2UaTVyi+KCa3kdRHZqFUQL/Jb+SEgYPNLQTExa6N07M/yo8 d14AROu3A8asuL0lhexjaBlQSc/YJKEU6gDtLKQYEBXD2M1xuRfe3TFi3fIKI+YY QYa7/ATfL9PxEBj8XMv1+kvViouNCjYLLJM8JttiiX2w4XEz3m8Ij3oeEhvWNd37 /AeYU3cF/CFUUs3URIPSkttgWVtVV/7IDdhWrxIZsjW/5XDagdBmXSJI0OY8Z5Ll dK+Ihr8pZ8nFs0WEa6VdNbHWbTGcMKbRPS4sOikV6wqlECGJYdoYCkWAw8Zfab74 K7OvOiNik5HSlC8UBub6SaTb92oNp6vArNbCHxl+MISgxzYrFyXOpVHEJZOt0vbZ s4j66bnQpyDfNgOCWL2/uvvUfMuI4f6+ksr9490bDE/e0swYM4qtiF5M4QSaGBmL jyWOj11vDosJusLUT6I/pUe9JeA+1LOYmEGo/XPDRsUNUHckU2UagbNTz+UmAvyp /sUqON3HSJHaPOc6ToxS =rEYc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/+.5RN_1FKyHiXf7VpAw9sFk--