[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps
From:       Samuli Suominen <ssuominen () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-07-30 12:38:43
Message-ID: 53D8E753.6000902 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On 30/07/14 14:18, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:38 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 7/30/14, 7:36 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> If it's 2-3 packages out of ~300, I'd rather pick them out than
>>> revision bump all ~300 for the 2-3. Or not pick them out at all
>>> and let users do the rebuild (which is the obvious answer
>>> to the output you posted)
>> Peter Stuge pointed it out already, but I also wanted to say rebuilding
>> the affected packages is not obvious to me either.
> Sure, but this seems more like a portage bug (or at least a portage
> output bug) rather than a fundamental issue.
>
> After all, there was no true block - just a need for a rebuild.
>
> I heard prerm as a reason why dynamic deps can break (especially with
> slot operator deps, though obviously it also breaks for
> non-slot-operator deps that should be expressed as such), though as
> has been pointed out those will break unless we unmerge and remerge
> all reverse-deps on every upgrade.  Are there other issues.
>
> To be honest I was expecting a plethora of issues that can go wrong
> with dynamic deps, but so far I'm hearing something like 2-3, and if
> that really is all that there is then this may be a solvable issue.
>
>

That's what I've been trying to point out, people are seriously suggesting
disabling dynamic deps for race conditions
It's like fixing one audio driver in the kernel by deleting whole ALSA block

:-(

- Samuli

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]