Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 17:08:27 Rich Freeman <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny <[email protected]> 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 shouldn't hold onto outdated information. You just introduced the opposite breakage -- when a dependency on C was added, it ends up in vdb before C is installed. Now if C and current version of A are removed before C gets installed, you end up having broken dependency in vdb... Plus, 'as soon' means you're making --pretend actually write something. That's bad. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
