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 788F013877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A810CE1B51; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.155.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B37A1E1B2F for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B7E044609B for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:18:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kailua.localnet (pc1011302446.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.96.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hua59129) by rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B35D646051 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:18:08 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:15:42 +0200 Message-ID: <2313928.8HG0gu9JG6@kailua> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.10.32-gentoo; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20140725000627.34d08221@pomiot.lan> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org> <20140725000627.34d08221@pomiot.lan> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: 36f03d4b-ba76-4e49-a733-db196809d025 X-Archives-Hash: fc854934a056ed4930f32f7bfe4b3718 > > 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) > > > > But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point of > > view :( > > I'm afraid it couldn't. The major problem is not knowing *when* to > migrate metadata, portage usually gets that right. The problem is in > getting the correct output which is often near to impossible. I think we'd appreciate some more information here: * What exactly is the metadata that we're talking about? * How much of it can be generated by sourcing the ebuild, without running phases? * When does that exactly break? Example? Thanks!!! -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde, council