From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5410713877A for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E80C1E0BBF; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:06:15 +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 ECC1EE0B80 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:06:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.223] (9.146.16.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.16.146.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B24333FE1D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 1fd72f7d-c462-4b2c-b02e-def5ef92ee24 X-Archives-Hash: 41f5c82d5a0c8ebab9aefc61af7b830b El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the > > ebuild are changed. > > Nothing about dependencies. > > > > This has been policy for a LONG time, and we're not going to change > > it overnight just because you protest. > > Policy used to be that you'd do a revbump when you wanted users to > reinstall stuff, and you wouldn't otherwise. The only complication is > that sometimes you want users to reinstall stuff so that there's > accurate dependency information available, rather than because > something has changed. > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the installed files (for example, -r1.1) But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point of view :(