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 3568B1392EF for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:01:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 81D24E0C2F; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:01:40 +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 8BCE0E0BDA for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-72-95-142-204.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [72.95.142.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zerochaos) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 700E033FDFC for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:01:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53CDB8C7.7040106@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:05:11 -0400 From: "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" 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> <53CD8269.3050808@gentoo.org> <20140721225251.GA22854@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20140721225251.GA22854@linux1> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 36a4ebf7-ede1-4c2c-b8d6-f56d687212e5 X-Archives-Hash: cb5640b502d7e6ceef29108da9e95a4d -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/21/2014 06:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I'm picking a random msg to reply to. > > My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is that > the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then have to hit > the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, with stable > requests just because we changed the dependencies. Isn't that causing a > lot of possibly unnecessary work for our arch teams? If you edit an ebuild in place, and that ebuild has stable keywords, how is that any different than revbumping it and keeping it with stable keywords? The two are functionally identical, people get a changed ebuild, and the arch teams do nothing. The only difference is that 1000 different ways dynamic deps are broken. And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps don't work at all on binpkgs since the Packages file contains the deps (like vardb) and it doesn't get updated (just like vardb). Revbump or make dynamic deps actually work (ha). - -Zero -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTzbjHAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKVL4P/2Sb88YYcbHJZ1pfnVukxvvi zYD00knmGiQOcmSxZMPnhVXjV+Z1SzyOPtmZa5KXLd2xwmVvNwJdUV0ssjfDi6Gg fxnAEWWuZ6xEvpIlm7WIXq5VFGL/AO4HUso6mHqSVZbbgYLPiFCooSAn291Epmjn vGIkUf5pNtRp6gLQFTqM2ksDzJWaOF9bmuapcCSumv3uhKK2Empy+6kHTKYVd/m5 Mvo10p7W8amozV+pl7Si7tWGOf/U+Xo3N0gt9VJzz8oxIpooXZ+nSB3p9bXSbKZN sspz9khHLKFyhOAfoBbtLB9cqwPfPqgMlt6h4n9l2uJ+E0nMz0vRIlQnMarKD2FE /3DG6zrvWU0eRuYM7c5iqOrlL1WYgAA3p6CEBo5U9+h+8eF2bgxAJt/c7txJG0Ws EpSlwOIFyfVOWaJeb1WpBt72sMH+URF/YRl6K0ZKmp7+X5Ga/39ZznRfhRblRp9h nBMyIer9Ai7wNbc7A1qMvjedqOknOwSJjKEDkaUAIn5RTFa5VmLAGURSeuQnIvjE ogel9ENjdoZJW0i8bEO8ArCS9X5vgdWiwZHcjZL62KNYoqc6ySrsTUm0Eo3vDevo wr782AzzLPVftPXNHMnEthBs5ztbLr6YlXv/V5jfCc1YRQGUeEMjBkny/Nxm1VLi /l1lbtaTcm5FcqSjen4Q =asgW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----