Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1761 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:54:08 +0000 (UTC)
Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> 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)
> >> Or the package manager looks at changed in *DEPEND between the repo
> >> and vdb and resolves those.
> >
> > ...assuming that the ebuild hasn't been removed, and that it can be
> > associated correctly when overlays are involved, and that the change
> > wasn't a change where a saved pkg_prerm uses the old dependency, not
> > the new one, or all the other ways this breaks.
> >
> > You need to think your cunning plan the whole way through.
> 
> It works, since it is completely equivalent to a revbump,
> only that the unnecesary recompilation is avoided:
> All of your problems exist (or don't exist) for usual revbumps
> as well.

At this point, I think it would be most helpful towards us reaching a
conclusion if you agreed to refrain from commenting further until
you've understood the problem at hand.

You see, the rest of us are using "broken" to mean "broken" in a
technical sense, based upon our understanding of how ebuilds, the VDB
and metadata work. You seem to be using it to mean "does something you
superficially or ideologically don't like".

This is a technical discussion, and you need to read up on how things
work before you can make a meaningful contribution.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]