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 13BDF13877A for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:36:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 439DBE1054; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:31:17 +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 DB91BE0FBC for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.116] (bas1-ottawa09-2925288101.dsl.bell.ca [174.92.90.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FE7634018F for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:01:58 +0000 (UTC) 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> From: Ian Stakenvicius Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) In-Reply-To: <20140723004441.2e68c0b0@gentoo.org> Message-Id: <80394B0F-BD2A-46C9-85A1-BF1EC30A8555@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:01:55 -0400 To: "gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (1.0) X-Archives-Salt: 68adbb08-ecfb-4cde-b624-006251fc368e X-Archives-Hash: 22cf6245789498b93f97a28575d1709d Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... > On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >=20 >> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things >> would be asking for trouble, imo. >=20 > 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. >=20 > The increase of control comes from the maintainer being able to decide > whether the dependencies in the vdb are updated or not; however, this > gives rise to a mindset where you consider this level of control for > other variables as well (which syntax we'll [ab]use for that?) as well > as end up with more ebuilds for the sake of updating vdb dependencies. >=20 > Using an extension like -rX.Y seems odd; at the very least, I think an > incremental variable or something along that line in the ebuild would > work better. This allows for array usage like VERSION[dependencies]=3D1, > thus allowing other variables to be dynamic as well; you compare that > number against the one in the vdb, bingo... >=20 > Or is it just a figment? >=20 > Please think a design through and don't take a cheap shot with -rX.Y. >=20 The thing about -rX.Y is that it allows this new-dynamic-deps thing to act l= ike a regular rev bump to any PM that doesn't bother to implement it (or dyn= amic deps for that matter). Instant backwards-compatibility is a handy feat= ure.