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 289AA13877A for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D427E0C01; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:18:13 +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 7A1C9E0BEB for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (mobile-internet-5d6a80-173.dhcp.inet.fi [93.106.128.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39A7633F87D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53CD8269.3050808@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:13:13 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140721225642.56aee8ed@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140721225642.56aee8ed@pomiot.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 84d5af44-4da7-4bd4-8f2a-417e30def603 X-Archives-Hash: 84dad331d3302fe9a56622cf191a1fdc On 21/07/14 23:56, Michał Górny wrote: > Now... whether dynamic deps are technically the right thing to do is another > question. It merits discussion, but we need to be really sure about the > 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. 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)