From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LWJFk-0007Uw-As for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:39:56 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0E06E044F; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD73E044F for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2554964FB9 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <498F6D60.7080500@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:40:16 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] DIGESTS metadata variable for cache validation References: <498758E6.5080609@gentoo.org> <1234045916.24784.1373.camel@localhost> <498E17E6.8060407@gentoo.org> <20090208221814.722f573a@snowmobile> <498F5FF5.50203@gentoo.org> <20090208224721.4193ca45@snowmobile> <498F64D4.4080303@gentoo.org> <20090208231010.4b2ebe3b@snowmobile> <498F6A7A.2060408@gentoo.org> <20090208233008.6350dd40@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <20090208233008.6350dd40@snowmobile> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a403333e-df75-4370-ab1b-d61976677031 X-Archives-Hash: 14135b68ed4f8a9b1f3e92d67f6282b5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800 > Zac Medico wrote: >>> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to >>> keep track of and store junk under version control. >> I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Like I >> said, I think we have a justifiable exception to the rule. > > If you start encouraging this approach, are you prepared to make > Portage warn extremely noisily if a repository-provided (as opposed to > user generated) cache entry is found to be stale? Sure. Otherwise, it's confusing for the user when dependency calculations take longer than usual for no apparent reason. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmPbV8ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaN24ACg9LFy8dag9/riCwODjknQV/Ic 0koAn00PP5WJBo5UwMR6iATwfFOipTi6 =sOk8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----