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 5EA8D1387FD for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 087A1E0CFC; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:38:20 +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 E3901E0AC6 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (mobile-internet-5d6a80-173.dhcp.inet.fi [93.106.128.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CF0733F5A9 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53CE21CD.2030809@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:33:17 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen 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] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 764a6800-bd54-467f-98aa-e5c2c0810ea8 X-Archives-Hash: a2d08dafbcf7898343b4d96da222a6af On 22/07/14 11:21, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 07/22/2014 07:52 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: >> To sum up: My vote is disable dynamic-deps. And I would be happy to >> apply a patch that does this with the information I have today. > What a great way to kill the distro. > > I can already heat my house with the number of unnecessary rebuilds - I > can't imagine how many people will be left once we have to needlessly > rebuild libreoffice and half the tree every time someone makes some > minor change. If developers can't revbump correctly to address the > shortcomings of dynamic deps, why do we expect they will be able to do > so for static deps? > > When can we expect this issue to be brought before the Council? I look > forward to seeing the specific examples of unavoidable breakage that > would be required to make such a decision. > > +1