On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400 > > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 > > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than > > > > > necessary. > > > > > > > > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem. > > > > > > This would be suicide for Gentoo as a distro. Organizations that > > > have a dedicated build server and a standardized /etc/portage > > > config tree pushed to all user machines could rebuild half of > > > @world once a week. Individual users running Gentoo on a single > > > workstation or server can't and won't. > > > > Then either Gentoo should ship binary packages, or the user should > > find another distribution. > > > > Gentoo *already* does a full rebuild for packages whose bumps or > > revbumps just result in one text file changing. So long as there > > isn't a mechanism and full ebuild support in place to prevent this, > > it's a silly argument. > > You don't see the difference between unnecessarily rebuilding one > package (because a text file changed) and unnecessarily rebuilding a > hundred packages (because libfoo added a new function)? Especially > since maintainers of packages with long compile times understandably > tend to be a bit conservative with their revision bumps, but have no > control over when their package's dependencies get subslotbumped. So why isn't there a call for a feature to make ebuilds not recompile the nine out of ten libraries and binaries that they provide that haven't changed on a bump? -- Ciaran McCreesh