On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:33:08 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/18/2015 01:32 PM, hasufell wrote: > > On 09/18/2015 01:14 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:04:45 +0200 > >> hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 09/18/2015 12:56 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:58:09 +0200 > >>>> hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 09/18/2015 11:55 AM, Duncan wrote: > >>>>>> Alexis Ballier posted on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:04:19 +0200 as > >>>>>> excerpted: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Keep in mind what this implies when you change these > >>>>>>>> dependencies without bumping the ebuilds that use them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> only way i see these changing is with a new ros_messages_*** > >>>>>>> useflag, which will cause a rebuild anyway > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ?? Only with --newuse or similar, tho? Otherwise USE (or > >>>>>> USE_EXPAND here) changes don't trigger rebuilds, do they? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Correct. It's not good to rely on this and expect users to have > >>>>> a certain update pattern or even use a particular PM. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> then they wont have the messages if they don't rebuild, and > >>>> cat/pkg[ros_messages_newthing] deps wont be satisfied and the pm > >>>> will do the right thing by rebuilding. > >>>> nothing to worry about, really. > >>>> > >>> > >>> cat/pkg[ros_messages_newthing] will not be in users VDB until you > >>> revbump cat/pkg, so I don't think it's that easy. > >>> > >> > >> and i think you're confused about what dynamic deps is and is not: > >> cat/pkg[ros_messages_newthing] is not in vdb, so is not satisfied, > >> so pm tries to find something that satisfies it from tree or dies. > >> > > > > I'm not confused about dynamic deps, but about your example, > > because you didn't say anything about revbumps. > > > > If cat/pkg is not (rev)bumped, then there will be no check about > > whether cat/pkg[ros_messages_newthing] is satisfied in the first > > place. > > > > correcting: if the package adding cat/pkg[ros_messages_newthing] is > not (rev)bumped yes, this one will be bumped, and this is not part of the eclass
