On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > > Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the place > > where you "proved" how dynamic dependencies still work in the face > > of ebuild removals. > > *Neither* dynamic deps nor static deps solve this problem satisfactory > (How often did I repeat this now?).
With static dependencies, you have correct dependency information, and the worst that can happen is occasionally you might have to rebuild a package where nothing substantial has changed. However, this is a general issue with bumps (recompiling the whole thing for an init script or language file change, recompiling the whole thing for a change to only one of the binaries provided by a package, and so on), so it is not a "static dependencies" problem. With dynamic dependencies, you have incorrect dependency information, your system randomly breaks on a sync, you sometimes can't uninstall packages due to pkg_* breakage, uninstalling a package sometimes looks safe but isn't, overlays don't work, subslots don't work, binaries don't work, and dependencies can appear to be met when they aren't. So in summary, dynamic dependencies are broken, and static dependencies are correct, and the only issue you think you have with static dependencies isn't a problem specific to static dependencies and isn't reliably solved by dynamic dependencies. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
