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 EDBE113881E for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55D9021C00A; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 435ECE07DB for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:55:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so52424287igb.0 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:55:34 -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=jWGvRfX+XXZiipZh6H0Ckeucl9aW4nIdF8dsCGKvPGY=; b=JbS64RNBpdB+ukapKYcQ/PyfYtilxFaIf2VwbPqwL4eGL8eYBetxtHockbrf1Q8obg 01ijLrhutKKSbreKJQVynt0PwoCGtg54z1zdb5Aw58IRdK3i7IZWu0mwRwijnzIQCbzw sQpcVNMrA0x5nDGX+QN9Rxfr6/gYeffPDY70yId4YAGeB4iySPrjebyNBDsYs3QBr59I 1FOTgJ5n/tNAs2LXgG908QpqoKQt6w33/vzwK5H5r+XSXQNtEQKIy0Y2HleamAt6rwm6 VKSN99ksAeBYHpL4e1NB6Pm2a1ldyyOMTft9woQYdY9p9hUMHruGlurtYzllm4BXdtVX dGSA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.29.101 with SMTP id j5mr14210062igh.70.1443437734434; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.103.70 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:55:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <56080616.5090406@gmail.com> <560826D7.7070307@gentoo.org> <560844D0.90302@gmail.com> <56086BED.3070806@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:55:34 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RO1U0nImbuLleCQ2S5lSO5xKn7o Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: bc072539-259e-4bc4-b9bb-84e782bb78d9 X-Archives-Hash: 4521a2e66538ca458f8b07e0a6fd0665 On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream >> defaults of portage, not tree policy. > > As I understand, they intend to remove non-dynamic deps > (if they agreed to not implement it properly for sub-slots, > this makes sense). > > So we are not speaking about defaults but a fixed behaviour of > portage. Paludis had this fixed behaviour since ever. > Thus, esssentially, there is no other choice than to adopt the > necessary tree policy to the only existing implementations - > not council decision is needed for it unless there are package > managers which do it differently. Like I said, we can either have a formal decision, or listen to everybody fight WW3 over it for three years. What is the value in doing the latter? The fact that none of the package managers work with a tree practice won't stop developers from doing it anyway. Plus, any of them can just fork portage and put that in the tree - there is no policy that states that there can be only one implementation of portage. Heck, they could just follow the same upstream and patch it in the ebuild. People seem to think that just going and imposing a change on everybody else without their input somehow makes things more efficient, or less political. The reality is that it just results in more politics, since many will not accept the validity of their actions. It also isn't how we do things around here. If you want to change tree policy, propose it on a list, let everybody have their say, and then if necessary let the council impose a decision. People might not like the decision, but most devs will at least respect the legitimacy of it. If they don't respect the decision they can be booted, and the council will back that up. This isn't about who is or isn't right, or whether the portage team knows what they're doing. This is about having a process (GLEP 39) and following it. The portage team can do whatever they want with portage (after all, nobody has to use portage), but if they want to change what everybody else is doing with their ebuilds they have to follow the process. -- Rich