Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." > <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > >> Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > >> (Thank you!) [...] > >> [0] <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies> > > > > There's one more thing I'd like to ask about: > > > > For "Minor linking change w/ dependency change (unnecessary linking > > removed)" the "dynamic deps" cell is red with "revbump + mostly > > unnecessary rebuild", and "static deps" says "applied after rebuild". > > > > Arguably with dynamic deps one could also skip the revbump, and the > > update would similarly be applied after rebuild. > > One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but > can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))." How can dynamically > removing an "unused dependency" cause something to break, setting > aside bugs in the package manager? If removing a dependency causes > something to break, how can it be "unused?" Consider the following: 1. A depends on B, both are installed, 2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B thanks to dynamic-deps, 3. B is treecleaned (nothing depends on it), 4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't update it yet), therefore dependency on B is restored from vdb. So, now user has package A installed which has unsatisfied dependency on non-available package. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
