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 97F6E13877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 340BFE0CC4; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:52:22 +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 4AE37E0C88 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:52:21 +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 CB8F633FF4D for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:52:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1406015535.1013.12.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:52:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com> <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org> 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: 8c2543fd-53d7-4eb6-99fd-00acbc02e521 X-Archives-Hash: 121cd76815333aa443ce0d8dfdfef424 El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 07:39 +0000, Martin Vaeth escribió: > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > > 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) > > I made the same suggestion already on the corresponding bug > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516612#c33 > without any response. Just CCed :) > > It seems to me that this could avoid the problem of useless > recompilation and would allow fine-graining of the issue by the > ebuild maintainer (if not the maintainer of the ebuild, who else > should be able to decide whether recompilation might be > necessary to handle certain exceptions?) > and simultaneously allow to revbump even on presumably > tiny dependency changes. > > I still have not seen an argument against this idea. > > Of course, this would need an EAPI bump and could only be used > for packages which are (or switch to(?)) this new EAPI, so a few > (core) packages which should stay EAPI=0 for a long time > are excluded from this for still quite a while. > But apart from that few exceptions...? > > Also, this could be a benefit in the long term if we need to spread any changes to VDB in the future.