-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would be
>> asking for trouble, imo.
>
> This entire sub thread reads like a dynamic dependencies
> alternative in disguise, the difference lies in an increase of the
> level of control and in the place where this then gets
> reimplemented.
It is.
Here's the situation as I see it -- the portage tree needs to be
consistent at snapshot time. But things can change all over the
place, deps are moved, virtuals replace single or groups of atoms,
packages get split, etc. etc. etc.
Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited)
profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make
whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. So
realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work out a
better solution to dynamic deps (something that will failover nicely
for PMs that don't support dynamic deps) or perhaps adding more
functions to support VDB updating via profiles/updates/
Am I off-base here? Thoughts?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPSbVgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBDpAEAnqx8hBGkmmiVGE6Pz7Rh+BE9
ed5KuWwihJdjPGjXdjoA/ifwGD8oUO8epWIq4rahW+egUFhklKtPu57jIYSjY90y
=cZb0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
