On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g. > > when subslots are in use) > > Just to make it clear: No, dynamic deps are not broken.
Yes they are. > What is broken is that portage does not use them consistently. Because using them consistently is impossible by design. > It would be a rather bad idea to change policy just because of this > portage bug and force users to permanently do unnecessary > recompilations. At least, for me, it would mean that I have > to change distribution, since I cannot afford this. This is not a Portage bug. > > optional and not defined in PMS. > > Static deps are also optional and not defined in PMS. > > In fact, PMS makes no claim *where* to read the DEP strings from; > it only specified how they are to be stored in the tree. Incorrect. > Quite the opposite, PMS claims that one cannot rely on > anything stored in /var/db Incorrect. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
