Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12

[Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net>]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Alexander Berntsen
<bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> dynamic dependencies is a bug. We decided to fix this regression. I
> don't think this is a council issue.
>

So, I realize there is a bit of a fine line in the
telling-contributors-how-to-contribute department here.  To some
extent how portage is developed is up to the portage project (though
anybody who wants to could always fork it and add yet another package
manager to the tree).

What really does fall into the Council's domain strongly is PMS and
tree policy.  If we have the tree target a package manger that does
not support dynamic dependencies, then we would want to do revbumps
anytime dependencies change (new virtuals, eclass upgrades, etc).  If
we target a package manager that does do dynamic dependencies then we
probably would want to forbid revbumps on such changes, which of
course would tend to break things for anybody using a package manager
that didn't support dynamic dependencies.

So, this is more than just a portage design question, and I think it
is fair for the Council to take up.  Obviously the feelings of the
portage maintainers should be carefully considered.

So, not trying to take a position pro/con in this email.  I just
wanted to state that I think this is something with wide-ranging
impact and more than just a portage issue.

Rich