| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit |
| 5 |
>> from revbumps. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes |
| 9 |
> come with a new revision. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My gut feeling is that the change you want is probably a good thing, |
| 13 |
but it will never happen if you can't provide a single example of |
| 14 |
something bad happening due to the lack of a revbump. The easy |
| 15 |
counter-argument to your suggestion is "if it ain't broke, don't fix |
| 16 |
it." |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As others have pointed out, the portage flags are useful even if we |
| 19 |
make this change, so they're not going away. Also, I don't see any |
| 20 |
portage maintainers saying that they want this change, or that they'll |
| 21 |
remove any code if this change is made. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The only potential benefit I see is QA. However, I've been running |
| 24 |
with --changed-use for eons (and was running with --newuse before |
| 25 |
that) so I couldn't tell you what happens in practice when you don't |
| 26 |
use those settings. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This policy change would make my life easier, because for big packages |
| 29 |
it would encourage maintainers to not make IUSE changes until they do |
| 30 |
revbumps, which would save me a build. I'm running on relatively old |
| 31 |
hardware at this point so these rebuilds actually do cost me quite a |
| 32 |
bit of time. I'm not sure that not using --changed-use is a great |
| 33 |
option though as it will make it that much harder to keep things |
| 34 |
consistent when I do modify my package.use/make.conf. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives