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 F15D4138A1F for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 04:38:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46B4BE0C6E; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 04:38:03 +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 722DDE0C56 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 04:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.187.211.156] (85-76-183-23-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.183.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BC2A33FD28 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 04:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53437BC0.5050406@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:32:00 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <1818441.m608ytuvnA@localhost> <53429203.8090208@gentoo.org> <10856413.23Ceo60Wg0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <10856413.23Ceo60Wg0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7d4e0a06-51d6-4022-993a-b78c8ede0470 X-Archives-Hash: 09ab6e6e8a9d9bdddc684b18543df763 On 08/04/14 03:37, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On Monday 07 April 2014 14:54:43 Samuli Suominen wrote: >> On 07/04/14 11:26, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> On Monday 07 April 2014 11:02:44 Samuli Suominen wrote: >>>>>> at least as safe kludge to avoid disrespect like this: >>>>> I wonder if you noticed that I've been a dev since 2004 ... >>>>> >>>>> and disrespect, well, you actively work towards breaking things. >>>>> >>>>> Even when told, multiple times, that you're breaking things, >>>>> >>>>> And that we will revert breakage when detected ... >>>> What you told was you will impose your personal opinions as policies, >>>> and you will use the >>>> QA team membership as a cover to enforce it upon others. >>> I don't even know what words I could use to change your mind. >> You can get me to change mind by writing up a policy that says >> dynamic deps can't be relied upon, and getting rest of the QA >> team, perhaps council, on board with it. >> >> #gentoo-qa, yesterday: >> >> 17:50 < floppym> Hmm... documenting when to revbump in relationship to >> RDEPEND is not a bad idea. However, I think the rules would >> be a little more subtle than "always". We would also need some way of >> dealing with eclasses which generate >> RDEPEND, and also with revbumping stable ebuilds. >> > Soo, here's the usecase: > > /usr/portage empty except profiles/ (needed for various reasons) > > Everything else supplied by binpkgs > > > ... note how there's no way at all ever for your dynamic deps idea to affect > the visible packages and updates. > > So the only way that has a chance of working, wuarrghl, is to run emerge -e Yet, that's exactly why my build host for binpkgs at work is doing. I'm fine with that. Far better than making everyone rebuild the packages needlessly. > world on every friggin update always. So about a CPU-day per build env, or > about two CPU-weeks for more comprehensive binpkg collections. > > > I'd suggest not making life more difficult :) >