Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: >> > The problems are of a different kind. Static dependencies don't do >> > something that you want them to do. Dynamic dependencies are >> > outright broken. >> Please, stop your childish behaviour. >> You prove nothing be repeating claims which had just been disproved. > > Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the place > where you "proved" how dynamic dependencies still work in the face of > ebuild removals.
*Neither* dynamic deps nor static deps solve this problem satisfactory (How often did I repeat this now?). Probably there does not exist *any* satisfactory solution to orphaned packages at all. So this case is not a valid argument to prefer one method over another.
