Zac Medico posted on Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:09 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 07/28/2013 05:39 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> [D]epclean now does [an elf-based dynamic deps scan] and will refuse to
>> remove a package [if that turns up a dependency], asking you to
>> rebuild the depending package first to remove
On 07/28/2013 05:39 PM, Duncan wrote:
> I haven't checked the details and depclean does run far faster than
> revdep-rebuild so whatever it's doing isn't as thorough, but depclean now
> does at least some actual on-system checking before removing a package,
> and will refuse to remove a package
Michał Górny posted on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:11:13 +0200 as excerpted:
> With a proper design, you have two 'repos': one with ebuilds,
> and the other consisting purely of installed packages (vardb/system).
> What's important, per definition vardb is self-satisfactory. That is,
> dependencies of eve
On 28 July 2013 21:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> Now, what portage does is implicitly applying _some_ of the metadata
> from the ebuild tree to vardb without rebuilding the package. In some
> cases. As an effect, vardb is no longer self-satisfactory,
> and represents something between the package that
Dnia 2013-07-25, o godz. 17:07:00
Michael Palimaka napisał(a):
> On 25/07/2013 05:17, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Actually per PMS you are required to revbump (and therefore require
> > upgrade on users' side) whenever you change the deps and don't expect
> > to add a new version soon enough.
>
> Ca
On 07/25/2013 11:29 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 01:28 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 07/25/2013 08:29 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> Shall we revisit that, and try to make portage behave more correctly,
> even if it means more revbumps / rebuilding?
>>>
Just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/25/2013 01:28 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 08:29 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
Shall we revisit that, and try to make portage behave more correctly,
even if it means more revbumps / rebuilding?
>>
>>> Just set EMERGE_DEFA
On 07/25/2013 08:29 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>> Shall we revisit that, and try to make portage behave more correctly,
>>> even if it means more revbumps / rebuilding?
>
>> Just set EMERGE_DEFAULT_DEPS="--dynamic-deps=n" in make.conf if you'd
>> like to test it.
>
>
> What (if anythin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> Shall we revisit that, and try to make portage behave more correctly,
>> even if it means more revbumps / rebuilding?
>
> Just set EMERGE_DEFAULT_DEPS="--dynamic-deps=n" in make.conf if you'd
> like to test it.
>
>
What (if anything) does that br
On 25/07/2013 05:17, Michał Górny wrote:
Actually per PMS you are required to revbump (and therefore require
upgrade on users' side) whenever you change the deps and don't expect
to add a new version soon enough.
Can you please provide a link/reference to that part? I am interested in
reading
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> On 7/24/13 5:53 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> On 07/24/2013 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
>>> Michał Górny wrote:
Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
On 7/24/13 5:53 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
>>> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/24/2013 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
>> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones. This is
>>
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:40:48 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Actually per PMS you are required to revbump (and therefore require
> > upgrade on users' side) whenever you change the deps and don't
> > expect to add a new version soon enough. Otherwise your changes
> > don't get spread and users end up w
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 13:23:15
> Ryan Hill napisał(a):
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mi
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter
> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones. This is
> supposedly wrong, supposedly slow but allows us to be lazy.
It's not slow. It's just wrong, and inte
Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 13:23:15
Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>
> > On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situatio
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situation gracefully by using
> >> the dependencies from the portage tree inst
18 matches
Mail list logo
