Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_rm_pretend?

[Kent Fredric <kentnl@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1359 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:17:49 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> I can also imagine doing something drastic like hourly depcleans, if 
> that's what it too, too, after dealing with a 1900-pkg-depclean!  Yikes!

It does sound like a lot, but when you have minimal chroots with only 9
entries in world, something like say, khtml gets bumped, and I test it
because this line brings it to my attention: 

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/kde-frameworks/khtml/khtml-5.39.0.ebuild#n56

That's easily 300 odd new deps.

Only to be cleaned maybe hours later so I can ensure my tests don't
fail due to missing deps.

Admittedly, half this stuff I probably don't *need* to test, I
sometimes re-test things just because somebody keyworded/stabilized a
package ... but my "Has changed" and "is perl" =-> "something broken?
Test me maybe?!" tools are pretty senseless in this regard.

Besides, a broad brush is better anyway.

And as long as I don't slack off for too many days, that backlog is
pretty manageable.

Not even doing reverse-dep testing, that's ... uh. Yeah, I'll let
toralf handle that, I'll just make sure the latest perl versions aren't
breaking things for now.

Sometime soon I'm hoping to move on to testing against development
releases of Perl again.

But eh, mountain.shovel while true;

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]