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 BC9DE13877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E2E3E1B05; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:59:52 +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 587A3E1AE8 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.195] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E3B433FFC2 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D270DF.6030209@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:59:43 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius 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> <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com> <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org> <53CE6CED.1060300@gentoo.org> <20140723004441.2e68c0b0@gentoo.org> <53D26D58.3000004@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53D26D58.3000004@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c3d059ad-8768-4088-952d-ed6e76003147 X-Archives-Hash: 67f375fa0f404f693eb6923af4b7ef1d -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius >> wrote: > >>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would >>> be asking for trouble, imo. > >> This entire sub thread reads like a dynamic dependencies >> alternative in disguise, the difference lies in an increase of >> the level of control and in the place where this then gets >> reimplemented. > > > It is. > > Here's the situation as I see it -- the portage tree needs to be > consistent at snapshot time. But things can change all over the > place, deps are moved, virtuals replace single or groups of atoms, > packages get split, etc. etc. etc. > > Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited) > profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make > whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. > So realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work > out a better solution to dynamic deps (something that will failover > nicely for PMs that don't support dynamic deps) or perhaps adding > more functions to support VDB updating via profiles/updates/ > > Am I off-base here? Thoughts? > Ignore this, i should've read the rest of the thread first before posting. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPScN4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBS5gD+MXU3VUvwhp1u/0wIDHeXEQdX TmJXhvDhuhuE+7ehee0A/1HGASXipYsejfJxPesQFO4Egs1Yzj20PXlVmil9H8FY =WwNJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----