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 033A813877A for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D56A8E0DDB; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3EAAE0D19 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ij19so9708743vcb.25 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xHcpWLt81vnW0GY1RwlB7zfQyQr2UG5x/ZjqL2uwtPU=; b=sGu+pSdBdOlUUtODIEiZeYcScNDnS2CpEFvGDQAAgIoPb9Vg95v3/AF/+t8uqja/he M4Ssv+Ginh/YnWdDL//YCysud+4gK1J8c2ztnwGv1JWuA5LIoyZ4/EDobTaXe2VtXLRJ tzqoVARk/si/08jYBBsM/mbclno9819LBO6bRU+0/IayCuhmKmTxwYqTtqJ7QUrpo3uv HIclnotHsYL44CPCt0vymN9vdFzUm86Pc9BGKwllxgutM14xOtLk+rEFW7ghpyAHvGbJ SCEMSa7UhT/TNpwvARMjb7ES2QSXr04yg3ZQNUgNClSooXlWF/k4V3d423d8pPRjTVqU ePow== 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 10.52.248.146 with SMTP id ym18mr30418056vdc.8.1406473746056; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.8.229 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:09:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140727155940.78c1435f@googlemail.com> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> <53D5072E.3030305@gentoo.org> <53D51311.1070802@gentoo.org> <20140727155940.78c1435f@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:09:05 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rPxprbsYitYBLB61KsHNDHfejYA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b526ad19-e61b-47b7-814a-e36fc261dce2 X-Archives-Hash: 9872db44caecf197ea85236fa5f517c5 On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200 > ""Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >> It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency >> resolution. > > It's actually very easy if you do away with all the things that are > making it unnecessarily complicated... Nearly all of the complexity is > self-inflicted. What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages without recompiling everything that depends on them? I do appreciate your argument, but at the same time for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. There are a lot of things in Gentoo that could be done in a simpler fashion, and 10 years ago Gentoo was a lot simpler than it is today. The thing is, all that complexity was added for a reason. I'm all for refactoring, but we need to be careful to not toss the baby with the bathwater if it is at all possible. It might be an interesting exercise if we could take something like kde-meta+firefox+openoffice on the desktop/kde profile (or gnome if you wish) and determine just how many rebuilds would have resulted in the last six months if all the changes we're talking about actually involved revbumps, and how much cpu time that would take on an "average" system (I don't care what but distinguishing firefox/openoffice/qt/kdelibs from some package with 1k lines of code is useful). Rich