From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1II0KA-00022U-UT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:00:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l76Aw3hw006569; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:58:03 GMT Received: from smtp.easynet.es (smtp.easynet.es [62.93.189.64]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l76AriR4001785 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:53:44 GMT Received: from bt-silvano.easynet.es ([213.139.15.18] helo=[172.30.1.51]) by smtp.easynet.es with asmtp (Exim 4.33; FreeBSD) id 1II0DY-000Gen-JW for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:53:44 +0200 Message-ID: <46B6FD8D.1040502@silvanoc.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:53:01 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Abraham_Mar=EDn_P=E9rez?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency? References: <548133.69625.qm@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200708051632.36725.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <46B6DFA5.7080406@silvanoc.com> <46B6F0FA.20009@silvanoc.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Easynet-bounce-key: easynet.es;tecnic5@silvanoc.com;1186397624;b729c8b5; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l76Aw3iI006569 X-Archives-Salt: cd2e8cbf-27ef-4ca2-99b8-3db0a110613a X-Archives-Hash: 5f6b1f7d0770ad33bba9fe030446b511 Remy Blank escribi=F3: > Abraham Mar=EDn P=E9rez wrote: > =20 >> That is indeed true, however, it will always be better keeping things=20 >> right than breaking and fixing as a rule, don't you think? >> =20 > > The thing is, you will *have to* break things at some point anyway. In > your case, it will be when you decide to update LIB (because you want t= o > have the new features, or because another package needs the new > version). Between the LIB update and the APP recompilation, APP will be > broken. > > Even worse, if you don't know that the LIB update will break APP, you > might not notice immediately that APP is broken, or you might only get > some strange results from APP. That's where revdep-rebuild steps in: it > can tell you that APP is broken, and what's needed to fix it. So you're > better off running it consistently after your regular updates. > > =20 I'm not talking about not needing revdep-rebuild nor saying non-deep=20 updates would prevent breaking dependencies, I just said that non-deep=20 updates will *reduce* the amount of packages that need to be rebuilt. I=20 systematically run revdep-rebuild after every update world (in fact,=20 it's all in a script which performs update world, revdep-rebuild and=20 update-eix), but I'd rather have it reinstalling 2 packages than 20.=20 That's all. Abraham --=20 gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list