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 1446013877A for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:52:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8705E0BED; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:52:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1704FE0BD1 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hy4so10071673vcb.13 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:52:37 -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; bh=qX0GPb2XibT+5atOYTizuSggwxqguMXnrq2gCHK+T+w=; b=lgAzkrhlB/aRPaiQmF8fXO4/0tTZPQXcrcFqViOoQAGcHw9XyxohikPu5hwMFNcifq C+B1yw07SubkEhqv9grPHfcyFhC8sgmc2xfWjNcRhD+PFkOoWUaKRxB9S6VP99aBOy4l auCYpchC5taHm3YG75GIVPCa5wlKZnf32RgT/Q9ROJry+Rgf2UVWDbQD0ziIa8FGYnU6 ZOLrhAERIkDZ70mkEULOjTOeeVdXPj+eCXBquNVIH/6hbQyXdUiP55pcXG0yy/B4jHzj 3YUf/EA/TyrtmVImXTIAo1uSi8d+4XJoptp5/Z/TKVz+2yEB7kYQST098ysK7cFoUB+N 902g== 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 10.52.163.229 with SMTP id yl5mr901634vdb.79.1406476357248; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.8.229 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> <53D5072E.3030305@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:52:37 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0n3GaCVig2GyKN6r-ItLTrvyhqw 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 X-Archives-Salt: 46d3c312-5b86-46b7-9209-785e9cc324fe X-Archives-Hash: a0c805e1ca24354c4662fcfdd2d7a5fb On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 28 July 2014 02:42, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but >> can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))." How can dynamically >> removing an "unused dependency" cause something to break, setting >> aside bugs in the package manager? If removing a dependency causes >> something to break, how can it be "unused?" > > > My apologies if this scenario has been explained before, I saw things along > these lines, but must may have missed their point: > > I get the impression that this happens: > > 1. User installs Foo > 2. Gentoo needs to change what Foo depends on Why? Is this about removing an unused dependency? > 3. Gentoo simply tweaks the ebuild and doesn't bump [A] What is "[A]?" What ebuild was tweaked, and how was it tweaked? > 8. Shadowing effect of [A] is removed, and Foo is now back depending on the > wrong thing. What do you mean by "shadowing effect?" You need to be a bit more clear on your scenario here. I'm not really getting much out of your example. My question was how can removing an unused dependency break things. I'm not sure if your example includes an unused dependency, whether it was removed, and whether it breaks anything. Rich