On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:32:20 +0000 (UTC) Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > User installs foo-1.1-r1 > > Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1 > > foo-1.1* is removed from the tree > > User syncs > > How is this different from your suggestion > (which you *claim* to be non-broken): > > User installs foo-1.1-r1 > Developer makes foo-1.1-r2 > foo-1.1* is removed from the tree > User syncs > > In fact, the result is completely the same, > no matter whether you have minor revisions or not, > and no matter whether you have static or dynamic deps. > > What is *actually* broken here is that the user > has installed a package which is not maintained > anymore: *This* is what needs to be fixed. > This issue is completely independent of static > vs. dynamic deps. > You misuse this problem as a strawman, only.
Uhm. That works just fine... I don't think you understand how this works: we can always use the metadata that's in VDB for dealing with the installed package. The issue is that sometimes Portage tries to guess that it's better to use the metadata from an ebuild instead of what's in VDB when dealing with an installed package. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
