From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66806-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 E0B3013877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CA24E15D7;
	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:53:44 +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 18888E15AE
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:53:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.223] (249.135.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.217.135.249])
	(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 A832333FF3A
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:53:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1406278417.20388.11.camel@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:53:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20140723143325.031947fb@googlemail.com>
References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org>
	 <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
	 <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com>
	 <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org>
	 <20140723143325.031947fb@googlemail.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: 1fcd1e11-64f5-4ba6-8058-63ae7a7207f0
X-Archives-Hash: ca3c6eab351b12e8a42e13d128e9f327

El mié, 23-07-2014 a las 14:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> 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)
> > 
> > But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point of
> > view :(
> 
> This in no way solves the problem. Consider the following course of
> events:
> 
> User installs foo-1.1-r1
> Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1
> foo-1.1* is removed from the tree
> User syncs
> 

Isn't there a way for PMs to know that they need to not rebuild full if
user has 1.1-r1 *installed* in his system and pretends to update to
-r1.1?