Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:05:32 +0200 Tom Wijsman wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:41:39 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > I wonder if there may be some form of extension we could add to > > po

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > 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 c

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-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 > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

2014-07-27 23:33 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:27 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > But, in that case you can put the necessary ebuilds into your overlay > > and then portage can make everything right. > > Oh? Please explain to us a) how the overlay interaction *actually*

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 28 July 2014 09:34, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> and if it doesn't work for them, >> they'll sync in the updates one way or another (using an overlay if >> necessary). > > > However, in the case the package gets removed from tree, an update

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 28 July 2014 09:34, Rich Freeman wrote: > and if it doesn't work for them, > they'll sync in the updates one way or another (using an overlay if > necessary). > However, in the case the package gets removed from tree, an updates based approach would allow the dependencies to be cleaned up lon

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:27 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> But, in that case you can put the necessary ebuilds into your overlay >> and then portage can make everything right. > > Oh? Please explain to us a) how the overlay interaction *a

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 28 July 2014 08:56, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: >> >> > To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get >> > updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above. >> >> Rewriting VDB won't help if the user doesn't sync

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:27 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > But, in that case you can put the necessary ebuilds into your overlay > and then portage can make everything right. Oh? Please explain to us a) how the overlay interaction *actually* works with dynamic dependencies currently, and b) how it

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 28 July 2014 08:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get > > updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above. > > Rewriting VDB won't help if the user doesn't sync at the right time. > Indeed. pkgmove has this problem solved with

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 17:08:27 > Rich Freeman napisał(a): >> >> 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 inform

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 17:08:27 Rich Freeman napisał(a): > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny 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 uninstal

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 22:51:13 Peter Stuge napisał(a): > What is the purpose of keeping only dependencies as-they-were when > the package was installed, if the package manager does not somehow > benefit from that information in the future? You have to ask the one who implemented that. Maybe i

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:51:13 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: > To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get > updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above. Rewriting VDB won't help if the user doesn't sync at the right time. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Descriptio

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Michał Górny wrote: > 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), So far I follow. > 4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19 Rich Freeman napisał(a): > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." > wrote: > > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > >> Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > >> (Thank you!) [...] > >> [0]

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:16:58 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Peter Stuge wrote: > > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize > > > > > packages without recompiling everything that depends on them?

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Peter Stuge wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages > > > > without recompiling everything that depends on them? > > > > > > Well that's never worked properly or consistently to b

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:02:05 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages > > > without recompiling everything that depends on them? > > > > Well that's never worked properly or consistently to beg

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages > > without recompiling everything that depends on them? > > Well that's never worked properly or consistently to begin with Please answer the question? //Peter pgpNaSXskEzkH.pgp

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 28 July 2014 03:52, Rich Freeman wrote: > Why? Is this about removing an unused dependency? > > > 3. Gentoo simply tweaks the ebuild and doesn't bump [A] > > What is "[A]?" What ebuild was tweaked, and how was it tweaked? > Here, "A" is the derived version of the ebuild of "Foo" the user in

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 28 July 2014 02:42, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but >> can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))." How can dynamically >> removing an "unused dependency" cause somet

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 28 July 2014 02:42, Rich Freeman wrote: > One thing I would question in that table is "applied immediately (but > can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working))." How can dynamically > removing an "unused dependency" cause something to break, setting > aside bugs in the package manager? If

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:09:05 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200 > > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > >> It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency > >> resolution. > > > > It's actually very

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >> It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency >> resolution. > > It's actually very easy if you do away with all the things that are > making it unnecessar

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency > resolution. It's actually very easy if you do away with all the things that are making it unnecessarily complicated... Nearly all of the complexity is self-inflicted. -

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 7/27/14, 4:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > With dynamic deps you'd need to revbump if there is a linking change. > Otherwise portage would just allow the dependency to be removed, and > then linking will break, since the executable is unnecessarily linked > to the dependency (in that scenario). Ri

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 16:05:34 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" napisał(a): > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > > (Thank you!) [...] > > [0] > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. >> (Thank you!) [...] >> [0] > > There's one

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > (Thank you!) [...] > [0] There's one more thing I'd like to ask about: For "Minor linking change w/ depen

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:36:31 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On Wednesday 23 July 2014 01:06:15 Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300 > > > > Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > > > And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

My apologies for the top-reply. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

It seems like a simple before/after comparison of active useflags and the text of the src_* functions (skipping build and install if they are completely identical) should catch the majority of unnecessary rebuilds. On 25 July 2014 13:36 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K.

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Using an extension like -rX.Y seems odd; at the very least, I think > an incremental variable or something along that line in the ebuild > would work better. It would also account for changes in eclasses, which any scheme bound to the ebuild's filen

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Wednesday 23 July 2014 01:06:15 Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300 > > Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > > And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps > > > don't work at all on binpkgs since the Package

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread >> - a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. > > Wrong. The reason everything is such a mess at

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 01:36 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) - The other one wo

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >>> Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: - >>> One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) - The >>> other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the >>

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) > > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the > > installed files (for example, -r1.1) > > > > But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "tech

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 17:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely > because we've accumulated so much "good enough" and "not thinking > your cunning plan all the way through" that nothing is actually > corre

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Ciaran McCreesh: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 + > hasufell wrote: >>> That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be >>> fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an >>> idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they >>> understand why

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 + hasufell wrote: > > That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be > > fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an > > idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they > > understand why it's wrong... > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Ciaran McCreesh: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 + > hasufell wrote: >> Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps >> support (or similar) should: >> * write a PMS patch and get it merged >> * join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of >> yelling at them

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 + hasufell wrote: > Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps > support (or similar) should: > * write a PMS patch and get it merged > * join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of > yelling at them That's not really helpfu

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Ian Stakenvicius: > Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited) > profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make > whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. So > realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work out a >

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius >> wrote: > >>> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would >>> be asking for trouble

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread > - a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Wrong. The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely because we've accumulated so much "good en

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would be >> asking for trouble, imo. > > This entire sub thread reads like a dynam

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

El mié, 23-07-2014 a las 14:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) > > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 00:06 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: [...] > > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) > > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the > > installed files (for example, -r

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 23:56 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió: [...] > Useless triggers are the problem; why are the rev bumps needed, why are > dependencies forgotten, ...? Sounds like a developer work flow issue... > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499852 > There are lots of cases of up

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 21:34:10 Alexandre Rostovtsev napisał(a): > On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 22:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps > > are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're using > > half-working implementa

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >> Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: >> - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) >> - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't c

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the > installed files (for example, -r1.1) > > But I am n

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:01:55 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > The thing about -rX.Y is that it allows this new-dynamic-deps thing > to act like a regular rev bump to any PM that doesn't bother to > implement it (or dynamic deps for that matter). Instant > backwards-compatibility is a handy feature

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... > On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things >> would be asking f

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 01:13 +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:34:10 -0400 > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > Why not adapt the updates mechanism for modifying rdepends? Perhaps > > something like > > > > rdepends-add foo-bar/blah-3.14 "wombat? ( >=dev-libs/wombat-1.0 )" > > > > T

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Samuli Suominen: > > On 22/07/14 10:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >>> 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense. >> +1 I also think it's the best option. >> >> > > Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:05:54 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the > most important features the package manager has. Uh, that's a bit of an odd claim, given that dynamic deps often doesn't do what you're after anyway... -- Ciaran M

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 23:06:07 Pacho Ramos napisał(a): > El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200 > > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > > Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the > > > ebuild are changed. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things > would be asking for trouble, imo. This entire sub thread reads like a dynamic dependencies alternative in disguise, the difference

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:45 +0200 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > One question: why for "Removal of a USE flag along with the relevant > dependencies" dynamic deps say "revbump + unnecessary rebuild"? What > would happen without the revbump? Assuming dynamic dependencies don't exist, another pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:37:17 + hasufell wrote: > afaiu dynamic deps are broken and not defined in PMS It goes a step further than that! The PMS imposes certain limits on dependencies; it states that DEPEND must be present before executing src_* phases, that RDEPEND must be present before tr

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:41:39 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > I wonder if there may be some form of extension we could add to > portage, such that it could do a VDB-only "re-emerge" somehow, when > the in-tree ebuild doesn't match the in-VDB one. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:34:10 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 22:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic > > deps are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're > > using half-working implementation

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:37 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > [citation needed]. > > In other words, please support such claims with evidence. Because > honestly I didn't see very much people complaining about unnecessary > rebuilds, except in this specific thread. > > But I guess they're indeed a l

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:05:54 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless > rebuilding. > The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the > most important > features the package manager has. > The quality of the distri

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:37 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > But I guess they're indeed a larger issue than, for example, portage > forcing wrong branches of || dependencies or other dependency > calculation errors that result in people being unable to update their > systems. But I don't really visit

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:50:55 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 22/07/14 20:44, Kent Fredric wrote: > > So we'll probably need a repoman check that is smart enough to know > > "X is modified" and compare the DEPEND fields with the previous > > in

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:52:51 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is that > the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then have to hit > the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, with stable > requests just because we cha

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a single > fix. Everywhere. Which bugs? Which fixes? Where? ... Did this thread spawn from nothing? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail addre

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Revision bumping for dependency change that doesn't cause the > package's file content > to change doesn't make sense; triggers useless rebuilds for users. A merged ebuild that misses a dependency needs an useless extra emerge. Think ab

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Actually the quizzes are pretty much clear on that. > > Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the > ebuild are changed. > Nothing about dependencies. > > This has been policy for a LONG time, and we're not

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > > > And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps > > don't work at all on binpkgs since the Packages file contains the > > deps (like vardb) and it doesn't get u

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 22:42:23 Samuli Suominen napisał(a): > So, -1, useless rebuilds is one of the biggest problems lately, [citation needed]. In other words, please support such claims with evidence. Because honestly I didn't see very much people complaining about unnecessary rebuilds, exc

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:42:30AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 22/07/14 02:36, hasufell wrote: > > William Hubbs: > >> My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is > >> that the new revision has to be committed in

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-22, o godz. 09:25:45 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" napisał(a): > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > > (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible > > solutions. > > > > [0]

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 22/07/14 10:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> 2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense. > +1 I also think it's the best option. > > Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless rebuilding. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/07/14 20:44, Kent Fredric wrote: > So we'll probably need a repoman check that is smart enough to know > "X is modified" and compare the DEPEND fields with the previous > incarnation prior to commit, and then at very least, warn people > doi

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 22 July 2014 19:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > > (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible > > solutions. > > > > [0]

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 21/07/14 05:06 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" >> wrote: >>> Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by >>> the e

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Alexander Berntsen: > > Julian, > > would you like to share your experiences with Paludis? My guess is > that Paludis is more predictable in this respect. I.e., instead of > breaking stuff, I expect Paludis to simply give up. > Relying on dynamic deps as they are currently implemented simply ca

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/07/14 02:36, hasufell wrote: > William Hubbs: >> My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is >> that the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then >> have to hit the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyw

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. > (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible > solutions. > > [0] Thank you, this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps don't > work at all on binpkgs since the Packages file contains the deps (like > vardb) and it doesn't get updated (just like vardb). Known long standing pitfall. It's managabl

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 22:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps > are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're using > half-working implementation as an excuse to be lazy. Why not adapt the updates mechanism for modify

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/21/2014 06:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I'm picking a random msg to reply to. > > My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is that > the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then have to hit > the arch teams, wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

William Hubbs: > I'm picking a random msg to reply to. > > My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is that > the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then have to hit > the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, with stable > requests just because we cha

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

I'm picking a random msg to reply to. My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is that the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then have to hit the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, with stable requests just because we changed the dependencies. Isn'

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Friends, Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0]. (Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible solutions. 1. Improve dynamic-deps. This is, as Michał pointed out earlier in this thread a pipe dream

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > The funny thing is, almost none of the Gentoo developers even know that > slot operators disable dynamic dependencies completely in portage. So *that's* why I now have to change RDEPENDs in both the source ebuild and in VDB in order to augme

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 22:21:42 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:15:41 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > > > - One would rebuild all as usually (f

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-22, o godz. 00:13:13 Samuli Suominen napisał(a): > > On 21/07/14 23:56, Michał Górny wrote: > > Now... whether dynamic deps are technically the right thing to do is > > another > > question. It merits discussion, but we need to be really sure about the > > consequences of any cha

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:15:41 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) > > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 21/07/14 23:56, Michał Górny wrote: > Now... whether dynamic deps are technically the right thing to do is another > question. It merits discussion, but we need to be really sure about the > consequences of any change. > Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps >

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:13:06 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:06:08 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200 > > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > > So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a > > > single fix. Everywhere. > > > > Dyna

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the > installed files (for example, -r1.1) Or the packag

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:06:08 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a > > single fix. Everywhere. > > Dynamic dependencies is not fixable. It's an irredeemably broken > concept.

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a single > fix. Everywhere. Dynamic dependencies is not fixable. It's an irredeemably broken concept. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

  1   2   >