From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66749-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5281D13877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:58:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55D9BE0FE2;
	Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:58:33 +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 622A8E0FDB
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:58:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (chomsky.torservers.net [77.247.181.162])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: hasufell)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 871EF34004F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:58:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <53CE51DE.9060308@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:58:22 +0000
From: hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 2c35ab0a-b6e6-4171-96ff-a3a139f1863c
X-Archives-Hash: bf44c941bfed980229e0b6cd255889e6

Alexander Berntsen:
> 
> Julian,
> 
> would you like to share your experiences with Paludis? My guess is
> that Paludis is more predictable in this respect. I.e., instead of
> breaking stuff, I expect Paludis to simply give up.
> 

Relying on dynamic deps as they are currently implemented simply causes
the vdb to enter a broken state after some time.

If you switch from portage to paludis then, you will encounter a lot of
"unsuitable candidates" messages during dependency resolving and will
have to figure out that the broken vdb is the reason. Afais paludis does
not allow you to randomly break the vdb (or I haven't found the --nodeps
option yet).