From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66207-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9850213877A for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:19:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA44BE0B20; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:19:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C041AE0AF4 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:19:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rook (unknown [96.241.16.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tetromino) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95BCE33FE88 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1402762672.16949.3.camel@rook> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? From: Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140614165652.046552aa@googlemail.com> References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> <20140614161341.6cc4c2fa@googlemail.com> <1402761029.16949.1.camel@rook> <20140614165652.046552aa@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-yvEaK/d2q12e6qPv5X/P" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 517980c3-a942-4428-a0a8-918c235445ce X-Archives-Hash: 7baad46c69b0a42c9a6ba6321238d501 --=-yvEaK/d2q12e6qPv5X/P Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 > > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than > > > > necessary. > > >=20 > > > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem. > >=20 > > This would be suicide for Gentoo as a distro. Organizations that have > > a dedicated build server and a standardized /etc/portage config tree > > pushed to all user machines could rebuild half of @world once a week. > > Individual users running Gentoo on a single workstation or server > > can't and won't. >=20 > Then either Gentoo should ship binary packages, or the user should find > another distribution. >=20 > Gentoo *already* does a full rebuild for packages whose bumps or > revbumps just result in one text file changing. So long as there isn't > a mechanism and full ebuild support in place to prevent this, it's a > silly argument. You don't see the difference between unnecessarily rebuilding one package (because a text file changed) and unnecessarily rebuilding a hundred packages (because libfoo added a new function)? Especially since maintainers of packages with long compile times understandably tend to be a bit conservative with their revision bumps, but have no control over when their package's dependencies get subslotbumped. --=-yvEaK/d2q12e6qPv5X/P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABAgAGBQJTnHWwAAoJEKRDAQ9PHUhgcwgP/jPA651z0s1sOy60/5ozv78k Lx44TrNYuVsgXH/SnB980E1JdAI4BYdXgNwxSkQrBb+ikSuyo2J8h2VgFJYahTYn oWWdaOpAKNoda49vnPFUKwKlVKePo43kwaeSqce48mDFIY1a0nNsMKbxwa4Pb66W JLYSjq8ws7mcIhPJfL8FHadHx0nAe7SqP0BgZqpSQ4p42nuUdpW9CCtFB754DjQ2 izH953piFrbK2/KHHLcbnR5Mbq9aIDPe5pIryMbMpYpM7IEmtjGKIBN181l9ZfsN iFJSX4V+abKRoWr1fiC11Lhmq79BGXLANwuKJGDuyeFGRHIjeBA0lreooYVBNIMq YlESZnsec2qmpr7v514SyHuokjCLw68/7GI4fOzeUQgx4xb82de4O4RH+m6N+/Cb YgfvznvjSt9lRwnx7Vkq+amnA8qQCBniH7f5qSilYXhDdNG5N+I7ifEL45FzShYb Lgy6nT4FJk9mPMshtiH941kTFKwi1vs7QVhLKhABuiOR3zog/vYm59KoCk8Z7V1r M6+PKdcuQ8CJ3bU8yopJjU3HvSZ2axLYPCDS785IcTtZqxPVV7rd8cPJJtTULHFV xJsuyCEOUIO9N+aUz5g05MqvIdUYZDMK2BSBYX7C1e976AcJrTD3GENOYF3L07aH GIr37imE5BK8GR/Jwwxn =eV23 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yvEaK/d2q12e6qPv5X/P--