| 1 |
On 28 July 2013 21:11, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Now, what portage does is implicitly applying _some_ of the metadata |
| 3 |
> from the ebuild tree to vardb without rebuilding the package. In some |
| 4 |
> cases. As an effect, vardb is no longer self-satisfactory, |
| 5 |
> and represents something between the package that was built |
| 6 |
> and the current ebuild. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ciaran has already elaborated a bit on the potential issues. It gets |
| 9 |
> most dangerous when you create some meaningful changes without |
| 10 |
> a revbump. I'll give you a simple example that I can think of. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Say, you fix a semi-build-time issue of linking against unnecessary |
| 13 |
> dep. Users who build the ebuild from now on benefit by having less |
| 14 |
> deps. The dep is less problematic than rebuilding the package, so users |
| 15 |
> who built it before prefer to wait for next version. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> But in this case, portage may implicitly update the deps from ebuild |
| 18 |
> without rebuilding it. This means that users who still link against |
| 19 |
> the dep, may end up with the dep removed and program broken. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If there was a portage feature of some kind that triggered a rebuild |
| 23 |
when /var/db/* deps mismatched ebuild deps, I'd use that ( similar to |
| 24 |
how you can trigger a rebuild when USE changes ) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm one of those people who doesn't mind installing the same thing a |
| 27 |
million times a week =) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Kent |
Archives