| 1 |
On 08/01/2014 12:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> One thing I don't want to do is create a barrier to anybody who wants |
| 3 |
> to upgrade an eclass or do work on virtuals. I can just imagine |
| 4 |
> endless debates about whether splitting a virtual is worth it since it |
| 5 |
> will cause up to 250 rebuilds, etc. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
This is what concerns me. I have no objection to static dependencies per |
| 8 |
se, but we need something (whether it be dynamic dependencies or some |
| 9 |
new functionality to work in conjunction with static dependencies) to |
| 10 |
avoid unnecessary rebuilds. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
A quick grep of the tree shows we have approximately 1948 packages that |
| 13 |
were affected by the mass dev-util/pkgconfig -> virtual/pkgconfig migration. |
Archives