From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ScOGZ-0002H5-53 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:59:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11D97E067D; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:59:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9B4E064F for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbrr13 with SMTP id rr13so131120pbb.40 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:58:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jeyQf9+IiJBZ1VwKkpM8k1OHlYRXgrGJC5yeSM0y/yk=; b=sG5jOcLlJXScHz2oPISIqIRnhwhA/xXwddnUx07Bpyl2Bi+RhWV1Cz3tb//vlU+GmY FPupe/FH/vHZnG9cQAVUovOFRISnZSNR2HimuGBqXwfgrm3byjaKpDh703Gv+xdSAeiK DoX8I81rrpLDPF/g1qihlSIte345J27grGFjzO7WQijnl3b7tCUnCg2FgsrjMmTaFa7q an1qNZ80e7aFmD6/1aOKqKfaacpP6gQSfpmZvZtMp3MxUrkfZmBReVbZ9za/sKRJtaFn 193+H3tVLYrFMQfqY76vRJCYChGj5cTUpspdPySWYCEiOEMpIYMotY8Yp5eHDk2Dv2+F Lkfg== Received: by 10.68.233.193 with SMTP id ty1mr1562360pbc.47.1339019937166; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 ([2620:0:1000:fd10:224:d7ff:feae:c014]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ub8sm1663402pbc.44.2012.06.06.14.58.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:59:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:59:18 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue Message-ID: <20120606215918.GA3352@localhost.google.com> References: <1338845178.23212.1.camel@belkin4> <4FCDFF18.3080600@gentoo.org> <4FCEA99E.4090700@gentoo.org> <4FCEBDD9.8000604@gentoo.org> 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-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCEBDD9.8000604@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 0253b5fd-8ac8-450e-bafb-d840df51b755 X-Archives-Hash: 2e69a6ac95a2f8813a63dfee4dd278f1 On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages > > with tests)? > > I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the > pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase suggested here: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c20 Same thing I said in '07; I don't have a problem w/ hooks for ebuilds to specify additional QA checks, but this *cannot* be the user's end solution- it needs to be purely for making it easier for devs to spot their screwups. In other words, revdep-rebuild shouldn't be involved; this should spot/complain that zlib (for example) changed abi w/out a matching metadata setting/whatever, rather than having checks done in the consumers. Using this for anything other than a QA check of the originating package, basically has an end result of us going towards a non-deterministic resolution model- which is a clusterfuck, frankly. ~harring