From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OkLa4-00089j-GP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 847EBE0AC3; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769C9E0A5F for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E911B424B for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zFM7ZE3gqcye for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3611B4236 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OkLZj-0006YK-9U for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:35:23 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:35:23 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:35:23 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/mlt: ChangeLog mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20100806212139.9E8422CE15@corvid.gentoo.org> <201008141535.35239.aballier@gentoo.org> <20100814125053.GA3085@Eternity> <20100814131013.GA1363@linuxized.com> <20100814134739.GA4529@Mystical> <20100814161626.GB1363@linuxized.com> <20100814170040.GA17432@Mystical> 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-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies; GIT a971f44 branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 83c0e3e0-d0a4-4176-a7ef-3c25d96a903a X-Archives-Hash: d83ebc1d7c33764d44e4c6f3f74a844a Markos Chandras posted on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:00:40 +0300 as excerpted: > Cause I don't like users to compile the same damn package over and over= . > -r1 for docs on ${PF}, -r2 for CFLGAS, -r3 for LDFLAGS, -r4 for ... Is > that a good reason or not? It is not like I introduce huge patches with > bugfixes etc. My fixes are QA fixes not *serious* bugfixes anyway. > Furthermore the QA fixes I do ( CC,CFLAGS,LDFLAGS ) are easily spotted > and there isn't much for users to test anyway. Either you respect the > bloody flags or not. I don't do blindly commits. I try to test the > packages in multiple chroots anyway. User perspective here... For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump. = =20 Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are=20 fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably updated=20 (every month or more frequently). The alternative is triggering a severa= l- hundred-package rebuild when some base library package updates, because=20 all those LDFLAGS respecting changes weren't rev-bumped and the user's=20 installed set is still ignoring them, and thus --as-needed. Better the few at a time, even if some of them end up being bumped and=20 built twice as a result, than the multiple hundred at once. So I'm not going to get into who's right or wrong vs. current policy, but= =20 that's my perspective as a user. For LDFLAGS respecting changes at least= ,=20 please do the rev-bumps, as the cost of failing to do so, thus triggering= =20 a mass update when a base lib changes, far exceeds that of dealing with=20 them on a trickle-in basis, even if a few do end up updated twice as a=20 result.=20 Thanks. =3D:^) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman