On 09/16/2015 05:49 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Hi all, > > here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary: > >> Dynamic dependencies in Portage >> =============================== >> During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to >> dependencies in eclasses, could require mass rebuilds of packages. >> >> Vote: >> - "The council asks the Portage team to first outline their long-term >> plan regarding removal or replacement of dynamic dependencies, >> before they remove this feature. In particular, tree policies and >> the handling of eclasses and virtuals need to be clarified." >> Accepted unanimously. > > Since there seems to be interest in the Portage team to go ahead with that > plan, I'd like to ask about the tree policies and the handling of eclasses > and > virtuals. > > I guess we'd appreciate this as a prerequisite for being able to give the > plan > future council support. >
I'm against it, because I would... * not be able to depend on portage specific behavior anymore * not be able to break the dep-graph for portage users who disable dynamic dependencies (and even those who don't) * not be able to break the dep-graph for paludis users * be forced to actually write ebuilds that comply to PMS * have to care about correctness of dependencies * have to do some work, actually * have to listen to people like PMS and PM authors, but I am smarter Instead we should... * start another thread of ~100 mails where PM authors have to repeatedly explain the problem to every single developer * let the council dictate over 3-liner devmanual patches that are merely expressions of the current PMS standard * piss off everyone who was even remotely thinking of working on this (there's no one anymore, so maybe this point can be omitted)
