On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:06:45 -0800 Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/02/2017 11:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 03/02/2017 02:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > >>> > >>> This is why we can't have nice things. > >> > >> For those that are interested, I'm planning to to make --with-bdeps > >> automatically enabled when possible: > >> > > > > > > I agree with this ^ but I don't think portage should rebuild for > > DEPEND at all. It creates one more dangerous "it works in portage!" > > situation that will plague users of other package managers. > > > > (I'm not saying it couldn't be useful, but it should go in the next > > EAPI if we're gonna do it.) > > PMS doesn't specify when rebuilds are supposed to be triggered. You > can consider the rebuilds as a means to satisfy the dependencies. > Saying that the package manager should not make an effort to satisfy > dependencies would be silly. And then have a nice ref. implementation for next EAPI. Having barely tested (*) features set in stone at each EAPI bump is even more dangerous than the "it works in portage!" situations IMHO. (*) I'm not saying features are not tested, but those that have been thrown at users for years are much more mature than the brand new ones in comparison.
