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 1393713877A for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07CE2E0BA4; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:41:51 +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 126D9E0B9D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3111340019 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53CD7B03.70904@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:41:39 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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] don't rely on dynamic deps References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD6D1F.3030609@gentoo.org> <53CD77E8.705@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53CD77E8.705@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ad0d30c6-cd1c-4e30-a5ea-1b5f4abb233f X-Archives-Hash: 7b9783441fd94f8f313db3f72b38aee5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/07/14 04:28 PM, hasufell wrote: > > Reality check, please. (btw... I didn't come up with the subslot > idea, so maybe check with those guys about useless rebuilds) > > > Removing dynamic deps is an easy way to improve the strictness of > portage, adhere better to PMS and improve compatibility with other > PMs. > > After that, we can discuss if there is a _sane_ way to avoid such > rebuilds. > subslot rebuilds aren't supposed to be useless; however if the subslot is changed unnecessarily then yes, it can trigger those rebuilds. I wonder if there may be some form of extension we could add to portage, such that it could do a VDB-only "re-emerge" somehow, when the in-tree ebuild doesn't match the in-VDB one. If that could be implemented properly (and i'm not sure that it could, tbh), maybe that would help reduce issues with dynamic deps, too... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlPNewMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB67gEAnK/FOF+6xQjXg3R3in3B/WgG loDxg1XOpMDR6NQPE0QA/jeDo3Vxt5qawbohvpnoWVwPwxbpHSfWkQ0UIwnQcDRw =EiHA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----