[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

James wrote: >[cr > DAG's All this can work only if you reflect the complete history in the DAG. Such approaches had been discussed and eliminated as unrealistic: You do not want to keep the history forever; the data will always grow and eventually be too much.

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

Mike Gilbert gentoo.org> writes: > Basically, yes. If [R]DEPEND in /var/db/pkg is different from the > values in the ebuilds in the tree, changed-deps will select it. > > Also, these two similar commands return different results (I have > > bdeps=y in DEFAULT_OPTS btw): > > > > emerge -uND

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

Martin Vaeth mvath.de> writes: > > James tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > Basically from my point of view, something like TUP [1] is needed so > > that at dependency check time you only list files that need > > attention (linking, loading, compiling etc) thus speeding up the > > update

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

Rich Freeman wrote: > > Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream > defaults of portage, not tree policy. As I understand, they intend to remove non-dynamic deps (if they agreed to not implement it properly for sub-slots, this makes sense). So we are not

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Sure, but the portage team can really only dictate the upstream >> defaults of portage, not tree policy. > > As I understand, they intend to remove non-dynamic deps > (if they

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

Michael Orlitzky gentoo.org> writes: > With dynamic deps, portage will scan (that is, execute) all of the > ebuilds for installed packages that could affect the dependency graph. > If any of those ebuilds have changed, portage will use the new > information rather than the info present when you

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

On 09/27/2015 03:52 PM, James wrote: > >> That's nice, because now if you want to install or update something >> else, portage doesn't have to re-execute every ebuild/eclass that could >> possibly affect the new thing -- it only has to check the VDB. > > I think that this is what GLEP-64 is all

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > With dynamic deps, portage will scan (that is, execute) all of the > ebuilds for installed packages that could affect the dependency graph. This is not correct. This data is already stored in metadata/ (or in /var/cache/edb, depending on the backend),

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> There really wasn't much loud objection when the proposal came up >> again last week > > This does not mean that everybody agreed. > However, all arguments had been exchanged before,

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

James wrote: > > Basically from my point of view, something like TUP [1] is needed so > that at dependency check time you only list files that need > attention (linking, loading, compiling etc) thus speeding up the > update processes for the Package Manager (portage).

[gentoo-user] Re: dynamic deps, wtf are they exactly

Rich Freeman wrote: > There really wasn't much loud objection when the proposal came up > again last week This does not mean that everybody agreed. However, all arguments had been exchanged before, so repeating them would just have been pointless: Eventually a decision had to