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 7937413877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85CA4E1B49; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:10:03 +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 9F26DE1B0B for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (tor-exit-node.tsa.lf-net.org [178.63.154.93]) (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 EE1D7340080 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D27343.6020009@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 +0000 From: hasufell 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1c809062-940c-4c66-9e51-d7693d997523 X-Archives-Hash: b92f38263098c7786fa1570beef4dcee Ian Stakenvicius: > 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? > > Yes, as was already explained. Those are currently just dreams or abstract thoughts. Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g. when subslots are in use), optional and not defined in PMS. People really don't seem to understand what is going on here. We rely on behavior that depends not only on a portage specific feature, but also on the context and can pretty much be considered undefined. I guess I have to repost https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies Dynamic deps don't work for you, even if you think that. Coming up with an alternative approach will probably take a lot of effort and shouldn't be considered a blocker to fix a fundamental bug in dependency calculation, which is already broken in portage in many ways. If we already bikeshed about one of the simplest ways to improve dependency calculation, I wonder what will happen if someone wants to actually fix it. Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps support (or similar) should: * write a PMS patch and get it merged * join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of yelling at them