From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66746-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 7EC0913877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 340F9E0CFC;
	Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:12 +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 4B850E0CCD
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:11 +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 F32B933F7E0
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:09 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1406021105.1013.23.camel@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:25:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <53CE219B.8030400@sumptuouscapital.com>
References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org>
	 <lql6tb$e3n$1@ger.gmane.org> <53CE219B.8030400@sumptuouscapital.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4 
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: 9e6309d1-4bb9-4226-917d-7d95279ebfdd
X-Archives-Hash: 0c3ccb0054c71f05762f61275ca9b1a5

El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 10:32 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió:
[...]
> I find it somewhat curious that the difference between ~arch and
> stable hasn't been brought up in this discussion yet. IMHO a user on
> ~arch should expect a higher number of rebuilds, it _is_ after all
> testing, whereby at the point it reaches stable, the deps are
> hopefully more likely to be correct to begin with.
> 
> Does anyone have any insight into where these changes most often occur?
> 

Well, I have seen multiple times of this kind of fixes being noticed by
people running really old stable boxes. They notice them when they
update to latest stable and, then, we need to fix depends raising the
versions usually :/

Maybe this discussion should be focused on trying to think about how to
standardize a way for distinguish between revision bumps needing full
rebuild or only VDB updates :|