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 2741913877A for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B0B9E09DC; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCD97E09D8 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:39:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id im17so6651607vcb.17 for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:39:08 -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=DaxYlpVNTzapIC/45w8vup2SCS1nOJ2BxTpTE1SQojs=; b=bZ3qeYLbowWePBoOEaDIGtpK/gVj1o7s4pV7GqsHIRLHvSZoNoU5z0qrumdvIV64rl 7Vyt3vzOe2fThTdeESpBxE9S64nCNCdXryo/UMxzkhya9Xqy5FORsX88Vh6AnSxuI3D0 LNSCNsfm8Zej3jkZxzYUz3k4wEVDlGz0FYaF66OWllJRd6LfbyHVOcargx+Du/UiLHJT bj/jDIogceeFCE86Ci3YFCS8JBwl4xRFLpCysvYq/97xoxabAoxxjG9pK6h88ykkbiiV m+v9ZrNK2wtspOvAfchwnl8XCfqKrvElzOZh2WeGDwVUj9SuM4Gr2WK+8wHPAWU0TpzV zG/w== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.141.76 with SMTP id rm12mr2154046vdb.71.1406900348797; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.8.229 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:39:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <21463.26330.847055.224071@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <53DA69DA.8020000@gentoo.org> <53DB7F42.4010609@gentoo.org> <53DB901C.4090004@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:39:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EYN_QlVxDG1W-iM0OQQa3cL13SQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: fac0d013-268d-4ff8-804c-d949ef390c74 X-Archives-Hash: f418ab069ecfa0cfa781e11d9fefd99f On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > > Are you saying you agree that the prerm example is a valid one, except for: > >> >> likely to break with static deps the way it is implemented today (we >> don't unmerge reverse-deps before upgrading the dep, which breaks >> linking that might be required to unmerge the package in the first >> place - though it probably only breaks 0.01% of the time and the cure >> is likely worse than the disease). > > > I got lost here. Are you invalidating the example or is this a more meta > invalidating your invalidation? > > Surely a 99.9% valid example is pretty valid, or did I misinterpret? > I'm saying that the objection that was raised with prerm seems to be equally broken with static dependencies, and can be fixed for static and dynamic dependencies in the same way, as far as I can tell. There is always the issue that if you add a new dependency it can start out unmet, but the same is true with static dependencies, except that the package manager doesn't even realize that it is unmet. That is, with static dependencies the package manager gets a perfectly consistent view of the universe, which is wrong and breaks in all the cases where it would break with a dynamic dependency. Rich