Samuli Suominen: > > On 22/07/14 10:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >>> 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense. >> +1 I also think it's the best option. >> >> > > Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless > rebuilding. > The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the > most important > features the package manager has. > The quality of the distribution improves by providing an alternative > with less problems. > > Sounds like to me, that the people who want to remove the feature so > badly, are the > ones volunteering for the job as well. >
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The feature is already _optional_ and not even active in all circumstances (did you read the wiki entry?). If your ebuilds assume that random portage features are enabled, then that's pretty much undefined behavior. We can debate whether there are dependency changes not worth a revbump. We can debate how to reinstate dynamic deps support or how to update the VDB. But considering any of that as a blocker to fix a fundamental bug in dependency calculation, handling of VDB and PMS compatibility is close to being silly, I'm sorry.
