On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:30:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.But you can't run pkg_prerm unless a package's dependencies are satisfied. How do you know what those dependencies are, if you don't use VDB and if the ebuild isn't there? (This is a real issue: see the botched ruby-config switch.) -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
