From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66914-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 9678113877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68809E0DF7;
	Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:53:46 +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 88E1AE0DE9
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:53:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (tor21.anonymizer.ccc.de [31.172.30.4])
	(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 AA1C4340092
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:53:43 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <53D3C0F1.4090806@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:53:37 +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] Re: 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> <20140723143325.031947fb@googlemail.com> <slrnlt77uj.9i1.martin@epidot.math.uni-rostock.de> <20140726134455.44cf518f@googlemail.com> <slrnlt7agr.9i1.martin@epidot.math.uni-rostock.de> <20140726142023.7dc9e12b@googlemail.com> <slrnlt7fqg.9i1.martin@epidot.math.uni-rostock.de>
In-Reply-To: <slrnlt7fqg.9i1.martin@epidot.math.uni-rostock.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: d2438ed0-3cd3-407f-bf77-5ee55e961d22
X-Archives-Hash: 33de7f9c5c66eabb88355adbd3f6f86d

Martin Vaeth:
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> But, OK, so I will use your strawman to prove
>>> how static deps are broken:
>>
>> This is not broken. This is exactly what is supposed to happen
> 
> "It's not a bug it's a feature"
> Of course, one can always close the eyes when faced
> with problems.
> 
>> and it
>> is exactly what *does* happen some of the time with dynamic
>> dependencies too.
> 
> Yes, both concepts have problems.
> Since neither solution is perfect, why choose the one
> with unnecessary rebuilds?
> 
> 

You are not contributing anything useful to the thread currently.

Read the whole thread. Read up on dynamic deps. Read up on PMS.