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 E4B6813877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 01:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0FAF3E141B; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 01:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13A92E1259 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 01:45:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k48so3655454wev.12 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:45:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=ZpT7uSP304jeVGVUCIjbqGSQiYMK+7TQgjjzqM46J6k=; b=MjLXXx9WlyZTCt4T0aVa1q0lDaub2wS3Ye1GtBRsbQSlVzg2R8HlhMRk7G/hGG0iru 9af99tB3OmBS/GFFhZraAj0MkrthmPtXsS2Ou/xxxsIZ44DQkI4I789ZRXs/a61AkoSl CEwVTjSxKgpEByYamNpm7xY/FP7yuzkM0zZZhj8KwSoNdsxDns27T+2a5DbwlHTWfIJ1 KHkdCkhnAQn9LbuIxBoVH9hLQ2fMbmWpbcdSJutX60sQYl7EZtCesCIjRrbJuZsl2gSi AAededO9oXl+mdNVoY6moY0V+wUlIPQtS7gcVxyDr/qwB1z7LK2/oPLBFV2zoliif7fv Z1Jg== 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 X-Received: by 10.194.48.8 with SMTP id h8mr16960835wjn.106.1406252758675; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.32.132 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:45:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140723143325.031947fb@googlemail.com> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <201407212153.04605.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140721205527.142cb3d5@googlemail.com> <1405976767.1013.9.camel@gentoo.org> <20140723143325.031947fb@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ff3-qZAhlJ9ZKikZoiSJSw5k9pc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 1392e0d8-9485-4b6b-b766-fe1fde3a4c3e X-Archives-Hash: ef5525790d63250ad33157a00e5fdc37 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >> 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 :( > > This in no way solves the problem. Consider the following course of > events: > > User installs foo-1.1-r1 > Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1 > foo-1.1* is removed from the tree > User syncs An updates-like mechanism would help here, since the updates could persist longer. Also, the user is probably going to end up uninstalling foo anyway or updating it to a newer revision, which means that whatever was broken with -r1 will tend to become a bit of a moot issue. Portage doesn't really support hanging onto PVs that aren't in the tree all that well to begin with. Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread - a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. If we come up with a good clean solution that avoids rebuilds in a half-dozen specific circumstances and we agree to only use it in those circumstances, there is no reason we can't use it, even if there is some other circumstance that will still require a revbump. I'm sensing in this thread that we're forcing ourselves to choose between a hack that can be applied 100% of the time but which can break randomly, or a hypothetical perfect solution that never breaks but which will probably never exist either. A solution that works 80% of the time and never breaks as long as it is properly applied is an acceptable compromise. Rich