Ian Stakenvicius:
> 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?
>
>
Yes, as was already explained. Those are currently just dreams or
abstract thoughts.
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g. when
subslots are in use), optional and not defined in PMS.
People really don't seem to understand what is going on here. We rely on
behavior that depends not only on a portage specific feature, but also
on the context and can pretty much be considered undefined.
I guess I have to repost
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies
Dynamic deps don't work for you, even if you think that. Coming up with
an alternative approach will probably take a lot of effort and shouldn't
be considered a blocker to fix a fundamental bug in dependency
calculation, which is already broken in portage in many ways.
If we already bikeshed about one of the simplest ways to improve
dependency calculation, I wonder what will happen if someone wants to
actually fix it.
Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps support
(or similar) should:
* write a PMS patch and get it merged
* join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of yelling
at them
