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 2ED4413877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDF0DE0F29; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f47.google.com (mail-qg0-f47.google.com [209.85.192.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E37E4E0E8C for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id i50so87242qgf.34 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:44:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=IJJYtl/IHtnd5o2+mbgjzW90P9oxp+QxhU5JBkvulmU=; b=S84G79eFT+w1lV6/LQTVdWHlYHkCR0maRbPayyhRDihvE0Xx6bzO8FqNsKVvTc9ePl AB6wlPngPEfX6PSBunbSwMYt5/d6YvxZ0uyk4TMAxfYJBWQa0cqN285YfRzLlys2C5i6 oH31qIVdNs9tCcwy8Ln1sPkqKHf9S6cq64UVkbqekkwSHhXhZJPGzoG5391AFPFoMU9Q zA2GgZd3XeuNC1uYnDBzi812muC/ndqDGUB52Nu/zU/CA/hl33Uc1fOtkOn6NAp+LuQw YApAhcvw1986y8LaakHNJsKk+1niBwCa1wvAePf5xmD5BXdmGmXAzl+bcBjPB6ltzzxS 8ApQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.224.87.130 with SMTP id w2mr59263166qal.5.1406054697796; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.44.34 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:44:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53CE11F9.8020700@gentoo.org> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> <53CE11F9.8020700@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:44:57 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133d5f6cc0c1304fecc9ee0 X-Archives-Salt: badc2ebc-77a5-4cf4-9a9d-8248d779c21a X-Archives-Hash: c45ae1b136319eaa9c216a55e158c20b --001a1133d5f6cc0c1304fecc9ee0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22 July 2014 19:25, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." wro= te: > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > Micha=C5=82 has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki= [0]. > > (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible > > solutions. > > > > [0] > > Thank you, this is very useful. I didn't understand the issue much > before reading that page. > > One question: why for "Removal of a USE flag along with the relevant > dependencies" dynamic deps say "revbump + unnecessary rebuild"? What > would happen without the revbump? > > > 1. Improve dynamic-deps. This is, as Micha=C5=82 pointed out earlier in > > this thread a pipe dream. > > Agreed. > > > 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense. > > +1 I also think it's the best option. > > Pawe=C5=82 > > Ok, we can side step this discussion partially: Lets pretend for a moment dynamic deps get banned. People will still unconsciously make that mistake and things will still break when they do. So we'll probably need a repoman check that is smart enough to know "X is modified" and compare the DEPEND fields with the previous incarnation prior to commit, and then at very least, warn people doing `repoman full` that they've modified the dependencies, and that a -r1 bump is thus highly recommended. And that check can be added *now* prior to banning/disabling dynamic deps. And people who want to pay attention to that warning can start doing it before policy dictates they must. --=20 Kent *KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL --001a1133d5f6cc0c1304fecc9ee0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 22 July 2014 19:25, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." = <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexan= der Berntsen wrote:
> Micha=C5=82 has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wik= i[0].
> (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible
> solutions.
>
> [0] =C2=A0<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/= Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies>

Thank you, this is very useful. I didn't understand the issue much
before reading that page.

One question: why for "Removal of a USE flag along with the relevant dependencies" dynamic deps say "revbump + unnecessary rebuild&quo= t;? What
would happen without the revbump?

> 1. Improve dynamic-deps. This is, as Micha=C5=82 pointed out earlier i= n
> this thread a pipe dream.

Agreed.

> 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense.
+1 I also think it's the best option.

Pawe=C5=82


Ok, w= e can side step this discussion partially:

Lets pretend for a moment dynamic deps get banned.

People will still unconsciously make that mistake and things will still bre= ak when they do.

So we'll proba= bly need a repoman check that is smart enough to know "X is modified&q= uot; and compare the DEPEND fields with the previous incarnation prior to c= ommit, and then at very least, warn people doing `repoman full` that they&#= 39;ve modified the dependencies, and that a -r1 bump is thus highly recomme= nded.

And that check can be added *now* prio= r to banning/disabling dynamic deps.

And people who want to pay attention to that warning can start doing it b= efore policy dictates they must.


--
--001a1133d5f6cc0c1304fecc9ee0--