On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:44:25 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > As was pointed out, portage prerm is broken with both dynamic and > static deps No: prerm is only broken with static dependencies if either a developer screws up, or there's a bug in the package mangler. But with dynamic dependencies, prerm is broken by design. > I don't think that is a huge issue in practice, but I've yet to hear > an example of anything which is. The ruby-config issue was real. But the bigger issue is: Portage's dependency resolver simply doesn't work, and most of the time when it goes wrong you don't realise what the root cause is. A proper fix is needed for this, and the way to do that is to remove all the unnecessary complexity. Dynamic dependencies are one example of these: they're *only* necessary if developers are in the habit of screwing up. > The problem is that not all agree that dynamic dependencies are a bug. It's a simple matter of fact... You can disagree about what kind of cheese the moon is made of, but that doesn't change the fact that it's made of Cheddar. > > Tree policy, I'm afraid, has to adapt to Portage; not the other way > > around. > > The reality is that both portage and the tree policy need to adapt to > the needs of the community, otherwise there won't be anybody around > maintaining either. This is about looking at the long term needs of the community, not the short term needs. The current situation is a mess: Portage gives incorrect resolutions, incomprehensible error messages, and sometimes randomly and non-reproducibly uninstalls bash for unknown reasons, and fully fixing this requires improvements to the quality of the data provided by ebuild writers. -- Ciaran McCreesh