| 1 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:46:08 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:38:59 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Luis Ressel <aranea@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:58:13 +0100 |
| 8 |
> > Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > Half a minute if you disable backtracking which you don't need. :) |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Which sadly also means that some updates get skipped silently. |
| 13 |
> > (Those which would trigger rebuilds of other packages because of |
| 14 |
> > sub-slot deps, had that case yesterday). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Can you give an example of that? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Rebuilds don't cause a different solution in the graph afaik; so, I |
| 19 |
> wouldn't see how that would form a big problem. I also think this |
| 20 |
> would still be covered by preserved-rebuild and/or revdep-rebuild |
| 21 |
> afterwards. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, the problem wasn't that rebuilds weren't done (btw: this is not |
| 24 |
about @preserved-rebuilds, but about subslot dependencies), but that |
| 25 |
updates which would trigger such rebuilds are silently ignored. This |
| 26 |
happened to me yesterday while trying --backtrack=0. The available |
| 27 |
update to dev-haskell/parsec simply didn't show up (haskell ebuilds |
| 28 |
make heavy use of subslot deps), I only noticed this because I knew |
| 29 |
there was in fact an update available (thanks to eix-diff). Only after |
| 30 |
enabling backtracking Portage found the update. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This might well be a bug, perhaps I'll examine the situation when I've |
| 33 |
got more time. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Luis Ressel <aranea@×××××.de> |
| 38 |
GPG fpr: F08D 2AF6 655E 25DE 52BC E53D 08F5 7F90 3029 B5BD |
Archives