Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> 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. > > ...but it doesn't actually solve the problem.
Neither do revbumps. Both, dynamic and static deps are broken. They are broken in different ways, but both are broken. So the only reason which might justify changing the policy is that current portage *implementation* of dynamic deps is broken. However, if it should actually be decided to have some hundreds reemerges every week, at least this should be implemented in a way that it is not so time-consuming.
