| 1 |
Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> Even if I believe in a metadata angel and if we pretend that the PMS |
| 4 |
>> requires the metadata to be there, then rebuilding whenever metadata |
| 5 |
>> changes is still not 100% correct (as you point out), because it often |
| 6 |
>> rebuilds pointlessly. But that's getting into a harder problem. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Oh, I think I misunderstood you here. |
| 9 |
If the PM would always "prefer" the repository's metadata (if available) |
| 10 |
over the installed metadata, it would not be necessary to rebuild packages |
| 11 |
only because the metadata has changed (or, alternatively, portage could |
| 12 |
just update the installed metadata in such cases). |
| 13 |
A "forced" rebuild would then only be necessary in special situations, |
| 14 |
e.g. if a subslot dependency resolves differently. That's why prefering |
| 15 |
repository metadata over installed metadata requires some "smartness" |
| 16 |
of the package manager; there are still several corner cases where it is a |
| 17 |
political decision whether to rebuild. Currently, portage has this |
| 18 |
smartness only partially (subslot resolving does not work), and portage |
| 19 |
has no mechanism to just update installed metadata without recompilation. |
Archives