From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F891396D0 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:01:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24C861FC00F; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:01:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF2FC1FC003 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2404:e800:e600:97:c01:b13a:8680:1c16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: perfinion) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DF2A34170F for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:01:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:01:40 +0800 From: Jason Zaman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Revisions for USE flag changes Message-ID: <20170814120140.GA758@meriadoc.perfinion.com> References: <1502521423.1045.0.camel@gentoo.org> <4ebddcf6-1d84-684a-6e3c-96bb65c24fd2@gentoo.org> <9a9b48c9-db50-f4e5-d4bb-cb4e0ebe8858@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9a9b48c9-db50-f4e5-d4bb-cb4e0ebe8858@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Archives-Salt: 79e6dc86-5f09-43c8-9687-0e64583677ed X-Archives-Hash: d2e5d396b6921d08a6a851863488d36b On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 09:05:58PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 08/12/2017 08:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> > >>> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit > >>> from revbumps. > >>> > >> > >> There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes > >> come with a new revision. > >> > > This policy change would make my life easier, because for big packages > > it would encourage maintainers to not make IUSE changes until they do > > revbumps, which would save me a build. I'm running on relatively old > > hardware at this point so these rebuilds actually do cost me quite a > > bit of time. I'm not sure that not using --changed-use is a great > > option though as it will make it that much harder to keep things > > consistent when I do modify my package.use/make.conf. > > > > At least now you have the option to run without --changed-use if you > want. If inline IUSE changes are completely banned, you will definitely > see more pointless rebuilds on your old hardware. In my experience most > developers make a change when there's a change to be made, and don't > "save up" changes until some arbitrary delta is reached. We've already > an increase in revbumps like this in other areas where inline changes > are being discouraged. I'll give an example where revbumps are significantly inferior to --changed-use. The selinux useflag is hardmasked in all profiles except the selinux ones and 99% of users do not run selinux. I regularly add "selinux ? ( sec-policy/selinux-foo )" to RDEPEND of packages. With --changed-use, only the people who need it (ie selinux users) will rebuild and everyone is happy (selinux users because the program now works and non-selinux users because they did not rebuild for no reason). If i were to randomly revbump packages whenever i needed to add selinux policy deps to packages then i would make 99% of users upset for like no reason. -- Jason