| 1 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: |
| 4 |
> - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) |
| 5 |
> - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the |
| 6 |
> installed files (for example, -r1.1) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I made the same suggestion already on the corresponding bug |
| 9 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516612#c33 |
| 10 |
without any response. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It seems to me that this could avoid the problem of useless |
| 13 |
recompilation and would allow fine-graining of the issue by the |
| 14 |
ebuild maintainer (if not the maintainer of the ebuild, who else |
| 15 |
should be able to decide whether recompilation might be |
| 16 |
necessary to handle certain exceptions?) |
| 17 |
and simultaneously allow to revbump even on presumably |
| 18 |
tiny dependency changes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I still have not seen an argument against this idea. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Of course, this would need an EAPI bump and could only be used |
| 23 |
for packages which are (or switch to(?)) this new EAPI, so a few |
| 24 |
(core) packages which should stay EAPI=0 for a long time |
| 25 |
are excluded from this for still quite a while. |
| 26 |
But apart from that few exceptions...? |
Archives