-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> 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?
>
Ignore this, i should've read the rest of the thread first before posting.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPScN4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBS5gD+MXU3VUvwhp1u/0wIDHeXEQdX
TmJXhvDhuhuE+7ehee0A/1HGASXipYsejfJxPesQFO4Egs1Yzj20PXlVmil9H8FY
=WwNJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
