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 3C87713877A for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A21A3E0F06; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:03:25 +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 C2E5FE09BA for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.9.137] (cust.static.46-14-210-169.swisscomdata.ch [46.14.210.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: swift) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5689633FFF7 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:03:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <1406021105.1013.23.camel@gentoo.org> References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <53CD8BBA.2010605@gentoo.org> <53CE219B.8030400@sumptuouscapital.com> <1406021105.1013.23.camel@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps From: Sven Vermeulen Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:03:16 +0200 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: X-Archives-Salt: 25259d56-886f-4ba9-bd04-c46671dd8c8f X-Archives-Hash: ffb9cd6ae630ca05528f83ed14fed74d On July 22, 2014 11:25:05 AM CEST, Pacho Ramos wrote: >El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 10:32 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: >[...] >> I find it somewhat curious that the difference between ~arch and >> stable hasn't been brought up in this discussion yet. IMHO a user on >> ~arch should expect a higher number of rebuilds, it _is_ after all >> testing, whereby at the point it reaches stable, the deps are >> hopefully more likely to be correct to begin with. >> >> Does anyone have any insight into where these changes most often >occur? >> > >Well, I have seen multiple times of this kind of fixes being noticed by >people running really old stable boxes. They notice them when they >update to latest stable and, then, we need to fix depends raising the >versions usually :/ > >Maybe this discussion should be focused on trying to think about how to >standardize a way for distinguish between revision bumps needing full >rebuild or only VDB updates :| As someone who regularly adds in dependencies without bumping (adding USE=selinux dependencies to the proper SELinux policy) because that would trigger lots of totally unnecessary rebuilds: +1 Wkr, Sven -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.