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 D94421391DB for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D88EE0C67; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:30:25 +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 423E8E0C1A for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (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 38E4233F7F8 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D65E77.5010403@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:30:15 -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] 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> <20140726134455.44cf518f@googlemail.com> <20140726142023.7dc9e12b@googlemail.com> <20140726155454.7f7ad9f4@googlemail.com> <20140726162225.021650eb@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140726162225.021650eb@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 100d77eb-de87-48f6-aff0-7a303c3cbf4a X-Archives-Hash: 0286c11fc62bb0fe5976ae9d918ca376 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 26/07/14 11:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the > place where you "proved" how dynamic dependencies still work in the > face of ebuild removals. Your solution to this problem will be of > great benefit to all of us. > This is something I personally don't understand. If an ebuild for a package installed on the system has been removed from the tree, but newer and/or older ebuilds exist in the tree, then the installed package can #1 only be trusted in accordance with the ebuild copy enbedded in VDB (that i get), BUT, #2 should be forced to either upgrade or downgrade so that it matches what *is* in the tree anyhow, and that's done via a standard ${PV} comparison that should happen regardless of whether static or dynamic deps methods are in place. IMO, if currently-installed versions of packages are satisfying dependencies after those packages have been removed from the tree, I don't see this as being particularly valid anyhow. Sure, end-users should be able to force this using masks or whatnot in the particular cases they need to do this, but i don't think this should be in any way a default behaviour, should it?? Ebuilds are removed for a reason... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPWXncACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBWLQEAp3sB8lfdZ8FYmXRsxNy6SlHE AR40+p+/x6J5+m4D618BAK4XKG64W92WFWne2rn3cDtdKuoQ+wwN2RBw066MoPJQ =TyGx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----