1 |
Michael Palimaka: |
2 |
> On 08/02/2014 12:35 AM, hasufell wrote: |
3 |
>> Rich Freeman: |
4 |
>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
5 |
>>> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:24:46 -0400 |
7 |
>>>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
>>>>> The thing is, with @preserved-rebuild I don't have to run |
9 |
>>>>> revdep-rebuild for the packages that either can't be or simply aren't |
10 |
>>>>> migrated to slot operator deps. That is a huge win. Also, random |
11 |
>>>>> things aren't broken during the time that I'm rebuilding, so I don't |
12 |
>>>>> end up chrooting into my system from a rescue CD when I forget to run |
13 |
>>>>> revdep-rebuild. I'll be happy when the day comes when we can get rid |
14 |
>>>>> of it, but that day is not yet here. |
15 |
>>>> |
16 |
>>>> Unfortunately, like dynamic dependencies, there's a vicious feedback |
17 |
>>>> cycle of increasingly ugly hacks with preserved-rebuild. |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> No argument there at all. Hence my statement that I'll be happy when |
20 |
>>> the day comes when I can be rid of it. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> Rich, this is a _fundamental_ problem we have in gentoo. It's the lack |
24 |
>> of a development model. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> It's also one of Gentoo's strengths. Please draft a document and present |
27 |
> it to the Council if you would like to change it. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
Absolutely not. |
32 |
|
33 |
The development model is within the scope of a specific project, so the |
34 |
portage team can decide what model they want to follow. |