| 1 |
On 26/09/2013 17:53, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2013-09-26, o godz. 15:15:38 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Thus I suggest declaring a policy: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> "" |
| 8 |
>> Any library bump that would trigger revdep-rebuild should be done with |
| 9 |
>> the affected library package.mask'ed until all its consumers have been |
| 10 |
>> properly bumped to subslot-aware versions. |
| 11 |
>> "" |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> (The unmasking of the library then triggers a "migration" to happy |
| 14 |
>> portage updates that don't need human supervision) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> How do we handle packages which install multiple libraries? I'm afraid |
| 17 |
> forcing such a policy and/or hurrying developers to adapt will only |
| 18 |
> cause more of poppler-like issues to occur. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
There isn't a 100% perfect solution currently, and I agree that hurrying |
| 21 |
people will simply move us from "not enough rebuilds" to "too many |
| 22 |
rebuilds". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Poppler was a great example of what can go wrong. Apart from people |
| 25 |
being forced to rebuild packages that link only against one of the |
| 26 |
stable interfaces, I even saw rebuilds forced for packages that didn't |
| 27 |
even link against the libraries. |
Archives