| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 05:48:14PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 10:34 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:18:17AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:05:02 -0500 |
| 5 |
> > > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > > If a build dep of something changes, the correct response with |
| 8 |
> > > > --with-bdeps=y is to rebuild everything that depends on the changed dep. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Unfortunately, my learned experience of portage is the "correct |
| 11 |
> > > response" is not something portage wants to do on its own without hand |
| 12 |
> > > holding. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > One thing I've noticed is you say things that portage might do without |
| 15 |
> > giving any specifics. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Let's go ahead and do the change and file bugs against portage if there |
| 18 |
> > are issues. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The whole point of PMS/EAPI is that we can rely on package managers |
| 22 |
> behaving reasonably for any input. Any package managers, in any |
| 23 |
> version. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> You seem to be suggesting going in the opposite direction of making |
| 26 |
> newest Portage version handle bad input. Using old version? Tough |
| 27 |
> luck. Using another package manager? Tough luck. Not fitting |
| 28 |
> in narrow space of solutions currently hacked around? Tough luck. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No, I'm just saying this: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
We don't know that there is a portage bug from what I'm reading in this thread. We are talking about possible bugs, but a possible bug isn't a bug. If there is an issue cite it otherwise move on. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
--with-bdeps=y is the default for a good reason as far as I am aware. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
William |
Archives