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 BAABF13877A for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:31:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36092E0B2C; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:31:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25368E0B19 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id bs8so2223495wib.13 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:31:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=OrUM1W4ExdM3POwcDSmTfev6ykiSkldDMOHWTKCwmBk=; b=aRy+QtQS1zqvub4+Y9gPofbxF+s12Mj1tjH2YTaTbV40qySGfwhMcnpxudOxM4q6Nu fy2txFhP4fRU9j/1DGWj+VwAYZFk5T/hIuZD9CnCPSy8CbbBjKlvNQ2K2Ze6H3C2eXlt 3Z6BVJFtihwv+kPczWffcRPFWvH9yFRKxVtmJt6igR+BW1izLO1EJzMeKyZIwOvgdCEQ T0pyglvsH1aGS36q67tUsW8PIHvus81sZMq0JYK9ZS0/TZVjcUOArEa8tCfpDWckpUt+ miY2gtBCjl9YpzuhMiFqasnoqnKRH53n9f+ARSeQiSn8nw27dnT3c2uYPEXZpEHFImG4 ZZsg== X-Received: by 10.180.83.131 with SMTP id q3mr13550666wiy.31.1402763512918; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc2-broo7-2-0-cust637.14-2.cable.virginm.net. [86.11.186.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nb8sm3576857wic.18.2014.06.14.09.31.52 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:31:47 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? Message-ID: <20140614173147.277d6974@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <1402762672.16949.3.camel@rook> References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> <20140614161341.6cc4c2fa@googlemail.com> <1402761029.16949.1.camel@rook> <20140614165652.046552aa@googlemail.com> <1402762672.16949.3.camel@rook> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/tl3qmADO67mk7+.lx10Vm3C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4e38f0c9-050d-4e25-b930-add7625ea3f9 X-Archives-Hash: 864b9372390e78e4a17de53fbef5baa6 --Sig_/tl3qmADO67mk7+.lx10Vm3C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 > > > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than > > > > > necessary. > > > >=20 > > > > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem. > > >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > Then either Gentoo should ship binary packages, or the user should > > find another distribution. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/tl3qmADO67mk7+.lx10Vm3C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlOcePYACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEoegCeLfrjeruqX1sKndty2IhxK2px DTwAn02/ry2vP4kwu7dHe226nx8l/bsV =E7Zx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/tl3qmADO67mk7+.lx10Vm3C--