| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Alessandro Barbieri wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Il giorno lun 7 set 2020 alle ore 14:10 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> ha |
| 4 |
> scritto: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> We are talking about the second case here, because the dependency on the |
| 7 |
>> virtual is being removed, while the dependency on its provider remains |
| 8 |
>> in place (it only changes from an indirect to a direct dependency). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> That what's I've done here |
| 11 |
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/13443#issuecomment-553764133 but |
| 12 |
> you decided to make me do a revbump. |
| 13 |
> Being consistent in decision is hard I see. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I still stand by what I said there: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| Exceptions are packages that take a long time to build, where you may |
| 18 |
| want to use common sense and weigh the negative impact of not doing a |
| 19 |
| revbump against build time on users' systems (and in those cases, it |
| 20 |
| can sometimes be avoided, e.g., by delaying the change until the next |
| 21 |
| version bump). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also I don't see how this would be a contradiction. In your case it was |
| 24 |
a revbump of a single ebuild with negligible build time. Here, we're |
| 25 |
talking about removal of a virtual, which may require a rebuild of many |
| 26 |
packages on users' systems if everything was revbumped. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
Archives