On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28 July 2014 09:34, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> 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 long after the > package itself is gone.
Maybe, but is it really our goal to fix broken packages that aren't even maintained any longer? The latest version of the package will always be in cvs/etc and users can always go fetch it, but do we need a special updates mechanism simply for the purpose of fixing packages that we've already decided are unsustainable? If an updates-like approach is the best approach for active packages, then I'd consider the side-benefit to treecleaned ones as being beneficial. However, I wouldn't really view this as a primary concern. At least, that is my sense of it right now. The primary focus needs to be on making dynamic deps work in a sensible way for active packages, which we're apparently having problems with already. Rich
