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 7213813877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91B97E1B94; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972D1E1B3F for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org ([94.226.51.153]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id WmA01o0093JKcCE01mA0AJ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:10:00 +0200 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:09:58 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: 1i5t5.duncan@cox.net Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps Message-ID: <20140726000958.0e7f0f95@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <20140722234748.021d8a09@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; 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-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/uVhE/+_cW9ze06/Y9bcGAwe"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 9966226d-8ddd-4318-b53d-fd74725a2d47 X-Archives-Hash: e89de292edd2e06ba15a73148adae592 --Sig_/uVhE/+_cW9ze06/Y9bcGAwe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > How long have dynamic-deps been around? Since EAPI-0? Because if > so, that interpretation must be incorrect, since EAPI-0 was defined > as portage behavior at the time, and AFAIK, no EAPI since then has > been approved without a working portage implementation. Good question, probably needs a dig in the old Portage history; it is something long the search terms of dynamic dependencies in FakeVarTree, given that the parameter[1] has been added later on. EAPI specifies what PMs need to conform to, not the other way around; EAPI-0 may very well be derived from Portage, that doesn't make such side features that have not been specified in EAPI-0 a part of EAPI-0. [1]: Add emerge --dynamic-deps option. http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=3Dproj/portage.git;a=3Dcommit;h= =3Df8e0c75e =20 > In the context of dynamic-deps I'd interpret the above to mean within > a single portage session. What happens some sessions later when an=20 > ebuild's deps are dynamic-updated after a tree sync is an entirely > new session, and unless I'm missing something, the above PMS > requirements can be met within a single session with dynamic-deps. Apart from the words "merge" and "batch", which are in the piece of text that I've quoted; I'm not sure how for the rest of the piece a session can be deduced or interpreted from what is specified. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/uVhE/+_cW9ze06/Y9bcGAwe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT0tW2AAoJEPWZc8roOL/QX7kH/Rme9KYFEtubBiLVCVSNi89B 4m2JiFAUeVs8vTT8O+hlpkTSC7efVeVzwH/jVcsArewfqLGMYVPrPE9pbJaVA54Z Blg9biqKpovyyL8DqkOKDiMb7ZcU4JVjDONVztKCD4OAuUMDXV97OBT7sIAI710C f0+xUPxTagnNexn3SEoP1veq/nPCyKh0PoC01IfjOE27B+ByGmv4bZXb8RfvMl8O 471RSJZ0dYnkDjromwVPRaa95UPLLEGom+NbZ/QBJd9IUrUlKP+R81HcXYVjMsWp YzrqcjzGGZUexelScEgY58oURq3CyMbzu2SzLiZT02+/qjH/IJFVeuGB/qEOcow= =lemg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/uVhE/+_cW9ze06/Y9bcGAwe--