-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 27/07/14 05:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19 >> >> Consider the following: >> >> 1. A depends on B, both are installed, >> >> 2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B >> thanks to dynamic-deps, >> >> 3. B is treecleaned (nothing depends on it), >> >> 4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't update it yet), >> therefore dependency on B is restored from vdb. >> >> So, now user has package A installed which has unsatisfied >> dependency on non-available package. > > I'd think that portage should update vdb as soon as it detects the > dependency change. Then B would no longer depend on A in vdb. It > shouldn't hold onto outdated information. Basically a dependency > change should trigger a no-rebuild merge if it is safe to do so, > and if not there should be a revbump anyway.
As has been mentioned or alluded to before, this is fine as long as end-users --sync when the dependency change is still in the tree. However, if that doesn't happen then we still end up with the issue. Of course, if that is the case, then #2 shouldn't happen either (because the end-user system wouldn't see B as having been removed and therefore --depclean won't remove it). ...why do i feel like i'm getting the same headache i had in my 2nd year databases course, when i was trying to wrap my head around ACID compliance and transaction visibility.... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPWelAACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCokAEAvDNcn+kJ6WTpL+hMAjexRuJX mbHoj9pGsuFQ2kqoL7YA/1n9mZ2zDpVBurXLflU2KpqNgGx3E/ujozBOveHzoII+ =0Zgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
