This is a continuation of bug #560356. I'm not trying to be sneaky by opening a new bug -- I just think it's hard to hold a civilized conversation on a pile of corpses.
Created attachment 416754 [details, diff] 0001-general-concepts-ebuild-revisions-rewrite-most-of-th.patch This is not quite the patch I posted on bug #560356. It also addresses two of ulm's comments on that bug.
Forgot the council summary. 3. Runtime dependencies and dynamic dependency deprecation ========================================================== https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/a8b5b499b9dbfdaea57a8f2a158c1fe7 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/97742 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/97428/focus=97742 The following policy was accepted by unanimous vote: "Maintainers must not assume that dynamic dependencies will be applied by the package manager. When changing runtime dependencies the maintainer should revision the ebuild if the changes are likely to cause problems for end users." The details, in particular the explicit rules proposed by rich0 on the gentoo-devel mailing list, were referred back to the list for further discussion and should eventually become recommendations. Further decisions on policies may also be up to the QA team.
Created attachment 440976 [details, diff] 0001-general-concepts-ebuild-revisions-rewrite-most-of-th.patch I've added another exception to the patch: when you're doing a package or slotmove (via profile/updates), you're allowed to edit its reverse dependencies in-place.
I believe https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org/compare/f3e6cc0...253075d contains all the information contained in the proposed patch. Feel free to reopen if we're missing anything.
