From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20C03138359 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F87FE090A; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11807E087C for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kEUeJ-0005SG-Ow for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 11:38:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please port your packages to Python 3.8 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:38:15 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <6bce27ad-fb72-011a-e10d-ab4c44c845ae@gentoo.org> <4384119.vXUDI8C0e8@tuxbrain> <20200903183807.58564cc2@pepito> User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply X-Archives-Salt: c3ceed2e-fbc6-4aca-b13a-4f2de31a56d7 X-Archives-Hash: 3832dcfdad68c0e6faee6341fbdbaf78 Martin Vaeth wrote: > >> Even if I believe in a metadata angel and if we pretend that the PMS >> requires the metadata to be there, then rebuilding whenever metadata >> changes is still not 100% correct (as you point out), because it often >> rebuilds pointlessly. But that's getting into a harder problem. Oh, I think I misunderstood you here. If the PM would always "prefer" the repository's metadata (if available) over the installed metadata, it would not be necessary to rebuild packages only because the metadata has changed (or, alternatively, portage could just update the installed metadata in such cases). A "forced" rebuild would then only be necessary in special situations, e.g. if a subslot dependency resolves differently. That's why prefering repository metadata over installed metadata requires some "smartness" of the package manager; there are still several corner cases where it is a political decision whether to rebuild. Currently, portage has this smartness only partially (subslot resolving does not work), and portage has no mechanism to just update installed metadata without recompilation.