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 629B513877A for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC118E0B4E; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7C89E0B23 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localnet (unknown [114.91.164.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FB8F33FDE7 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:41:58 +0000 (UTC) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:41:55 +0800 Message-ID: <3245038.ZrpqGKPg2K@localhost> User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.13.1-gentoo; KDE/4.13.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1402761029.16949.1.camel@rook> References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> <20140614161341.6cc4c2fa@googlemail.com> <1402761029.16949.1.camel@rook> 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: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Archives-Salt: e454a803-884f-4c14-a758-3c24f87dac48 X-Archives-Hash: e4d3ab378877fb78ac476cf323c43b81 On Saturday 14 June 2014 11:50:29 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 > >=20 > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessa= ry. > >=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. Well, you have to rebuild half of everything anyway. (And if you don't = want to=20 do that - update less often) Last updates on my notebook had on average half a dozen packages needin= g to be=20 rebuilt due to preserved-libs.=20 How is that better than automated rebuilds that actually reduce the=20 interaction I have with that machine? I'd strongly prefer a coherent policy for this whole library versioning= =20 situation, maybe per-library (so instead of forcing everything to use s= ubslots=20 we say "all consumers of this lib have to, and ignore others for now)