On 27/07/14 16:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 14:42:24
> Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>
>> On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> 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.
>> We just succesfully converted ~300 ebuilds in tree without revision
>> bumps from virtual/udev[gudev,introspection,static-libs]
>> to virtual/libudev and virtual/libgudev
>> Tested it on multiple boxes, went fine.
> How did you exactly test them?
That you could still emerge packages, even world, without Portage
complaining about unsatisfied
deps
> Did you at least bother checking if
> portage actually uses the deps you added?
>
When you `cd /var/db/pkg` and run `grep virtual/udev.*gudev
*/*/*.ebuild`, you can indeed still see some:
app-cdr/xfburn-0.5.2/xfburn-0.5.2.ebuild: udev? ( virtual/udev[gudev] )"
gnome-base/gvfs-1.20.2/gvfs-1.20.2.ebuild: virtual/udev[gudev] )
media-gfx/gimp-2.8.10-r1/gimp-2.8.10-r1.ebuild: udev? (
virtual/udev[gudev] )"
sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild: >=virtual/udev-208[gudev]
sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3/udisks-2.1.3.ebuild:
>=virtual/udev-${UDEV_VERSION}[gudev]
virtual/libgudev-208/libgudev-208.ebuild:# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/virtual/libgudev/libgudev-208.ebuild,v 1.7
2014/06/18 20:55:21 mgorny Exp $
xfce-extra/thunar-volman-0.8.0/thunar-volman-0.8.0.ebuild:
virtual/udev[gudev]
But if you try to emerge these packages, like, for example:
$ sudo emerge -pv xfburn thunar-volman
These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild R ] xfce-extra/thunar-volman-0.8.0 USE="libnotify -debug" 0 kB
[ebuild R ] app-cdr/xfburn-0.5.2 USE="udev -debug -gstreamer" 0 kB
Portage is using the fresh copies from gentoo-x86
I'm _not_ a Portage, the package manager, developer, so I'd really
appericiate some *examples* where this would become a problem, binary
packages is known one, we have lived with that problem since forever, so
something else, please.
For everything I do with Portage, this is fine with me, and I expect
it's fine for the vast majority of users as well.
And this majority of users won't appericiate the suggested solution of
"lets always revision bump, despite of triggering rebuild for everyone"
To clarify, I know dynamic deps is not perfect, but it's the best
solution we have implemented to avoid the rebuilding problem, and long
as that's true... And seems like you, yourself, have thought about the
same issue:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486778
As in, you can't skip that bug, and go directly to
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516612
- Samuli
(Excuse my grammar, woke up five minutes ago, to make some coffee now...)
