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 BDBBE13877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93FB3E0F35; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:10:59 +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 5DB7EE0ED8 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:10:58 +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 2247A33FE8F for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53CEB612.8030804@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:05:54 +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> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> <53CE11F9.8020700@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53CE11F9.8020700@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 9672807d-ef89-449f-b9ca-9b7895c85938 X-Archives-Hash: 47efbbbd1d7198de15f580ceb8b31067 On 22/07/14 10:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense. > +1 I also think it's the best option. > > Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless rebuilding. The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the most important features the package manager has. The quality of the distribution improves by providing an alternative with less problems. Sounds like to me, that the people who want to remove the feature so badly, are the ones volunteering for the job as well. - Samuli