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 A6D0B1391DB for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63876E0DE3; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:29:13 +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 84220E0DD7 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:29:12 +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 9E3DB33F6E2 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D67A50.2050100@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:29:04 -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> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> <53D5072E.3030305@gentoo.org> <20140727222429.3febdefa@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 35b15022-4b3f-43b3-90d5-67b2fd326a96 X-Archives-Hash: a7dc954f698348765a973d43223d3969 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 27/07/14 05:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: >> Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19 >> >> Consider the following: >> >> 1. A depends on B, both are installed, >> >> 2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B >> thanks to dynamic-deps, >> >> 3. B is treecleaned (nothing depends on it), >> >> 4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't update it yet), >> therefore dependency on B is restored from vdb. >> >> So, now user has package A installed which has unsatisfied >> dependency on non-available package. > > I'd think that portage should update vdb as soon as it detects the > dependency change. Then B would no longer depend on A in vdb. It > shouldn't hold onto outdated information. Basically a dependency > change should trigger a no-rebuild merge if it is safe to do so, > and if not there should be a revbump anyway. As has been mentioned or alluded to before, this is fine as long as end-users --sync when the dependency change is still in the tree. However, if that doesn't happen then we still end up with the issue. Of course, if that is the case, then #2 shouldn't happen either (because the end-user system wouldn't see B as having been removed and therefore --depclean won't remove it). ...why do i feel like i'm getting the same headache i had in my 2nd year databases course, when i was trying to wrap my head around ACID compliance and transaction visibility.... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPWelAACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCokAEAvDNcn+kJ6WTpL+hMAjexRuJX mbHoj9pGsuFQ2kqoL7YA/1n9mZ2zDpVBurXLflU2KpqNgGx3E/ujozBOveHzoII+ =0Zgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----