-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 26/07/14 11:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh 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. Your solution to this problem will be of
> great benefit to all of us.
>
This is something I personally don't understand. If an ebuild for a
package installed on the system has been removed from the tree, but
newer and/or older ebuilds exist in the tree, then the installed
package can #1 only be trusted in accordance with the ebuild copy
enbedded in VDB (that i get), BUT, #2 should be forced to either
upgrade or downgrade so that it matches what *is* in the tree anyhow,
and that's done via a standard ${PV} comparison that should happen
regardless of whether static or dynamic deps methods are in place.
IMO, if currently-installed versions of packages are satisfying
dependencies after those packages have been removed from the tree, I
don't see this as being particularly valid anyhow. Sure, end-users
should be able to force this using masks or whatnot in the particular
cases they need to do this, but i don't think this should be in any
way a default behaviour, should it?? Ebuilds are removed for a reason...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPWXncACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBWLQEAp3sB8lfdZ8FYmXRsxNy6SlHE
AR40+p+/x6J5+m4D618BAK4XKG64W92WFWne2rn3cDtdKuoQ+wwN2RBw066MoPJQ
=TyGx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
