Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> 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 speaking about defaults but a fixed behaviour of portage. Paludis had this fixed behaviour since ever. Thus, esssentially, there is no other choice than to adopt the necessary tree policy to the only existing implementations - not council decision is needed for it unless there are package managers which do it differently. Note that there can really be no exceptions. Even apparently trivial changes in DEPS like adding an alternative implementation *necessarily* require a revbump (because otherwise users who installed the previous ebuild could possibly never get rid of the original implementation). We will see a flood of "unnecessary" revbumps, but people knew this since the previous discussions.
