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 DF77E13877A for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:00:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64343E09F9; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D5CAE0894 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:00:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id id10so3536485vcb.2 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:00:15 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JdKiTYmZRtpoMhF2WRxBfeWFSpChJ3fnhQtlxBYcsWs=; b=znW9bxizUdYVsXgONwEqKkSIlkH1i1Qiov6gu08UuYnRtSkNNqFMoqjBMv3vnE/EaW oyWW29fw1kIWIfM0VluaQEuRVTFrEu6dtdF4XIfKyvmmUlFG7pUArdlvavV5D/TVqkMW 2zQgUmhN7AES9wSNZoZm7Bkj2QLDQHhU2wQTIxz6YpHUUN8FMRoi7B+ATnmqbT85tVdh /BQkWl/k01P9RXIOKn5l+JgFUQc5APv+N7gYWFu+K8jJq4EuyCedMqa892Vmi2IHM6AC AfYq5bAvycCyQf6Uv4kDOWVDbCsqeahZUWxBDWEaqWXxlPrlq9tQAEU+N6bmR005+VQX 3kXA== 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 10.58.29.234 with SMTP id n10mr7863450veh.16.1402776015672; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:00:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140614173147.277d6974@googlemail.com> References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> <20140614161341.6cc4c2fa@googlemail.com> <1402761029.16949.1.camel@rook> <20140614165652.046552aa@googlemail.com> <1402762672.16949.3.camel@rook> <20140614173147.277d6974@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:00:15 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nJi2UyJlomKeyG3kRzfv27y1y6M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 4f71a895-a8f3-467f-aeea-189b53b5ce54 X-Archives-Hash: e768d975be68709a0b222fcea5cdcb1b On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400 > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400 >> > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >> > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 >> > > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >> > > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than >> > > > > necessary. >> > > > >> > > > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem. >> > > >> > > 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. >> > >> > Then either Gentoo should ship binary packages, or the user should >> > find another distribution. >> > >> > Gentoo *already* does a full rebuild for packages whose bumps or >> > revbumps just result in one text file changing. So long as there >> > isn't a mechanism and full ebuild support in place to prevent this, >> > it's a silly argument. >> >> You don't see the difference between unnecessarily rebuilding one >> package (because a text file changed) and unnecessarily rebuilding a >> hundred packages (because libfoo added a new function)? Especially >> since maintainers of packages with long compile times understandably >> tend to be a bit conservative with their revision bumps, but have no >> control over when their package's dependencies get subslotbumped. > > So why isn't there a call for a feature to make ebuilds not recompile > the nine out of ten libraries and binaries that they provide that > haven't changed on a bump? This argument basically amounts to Portage isn't perfect, therefore we shouldn't make it better. The fact that some events cause unnecessary rebuilds doesn't mean that we need to accept that other events cause unnecessary rebuilds. Otherwise, who needs subslots at all - just make portage rebuild every installed package on every install and we'll never be inconsistent. :) Rich