Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Avoiding rebuilds
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:08:35
Message-Id: 20140801093501.GC17213@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Avoiding rebuilds by Martin Vaeth
1 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 05:49:07AM +0000, Martin Vaeth wrote:
2 > hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
3 > > Ulrich Mueller:
4 > >>
5 > >> I wonder if it wouldn't be saner to leave our revision syntax
6 > >> untouched.
7 >
8 > As already mentioned, -r1.1 is only one of several possible ways
9 > how to achieve the same aim; I am not speaking in favour for a
10 > particular method.
11
12 Sure. As dolsen prefix is using it, even if this weren't better done
13 as metadata.
14
15 > The -r1.1 method has the advantage of being simple and transparent
16 > to the user and developer. Other approaches have other advantages:
17 >
18 > >> Instead, one could introduce a variable INSTALL_VERSION that would
19 >
20 > (It would have to be a variable stored in the metadata/ cache
21 > and thus also would only work with a new API, but these are only
22 > technical details.)
23
24 Agreed again, there's far too much conflabation of EAPI vs impl round here.
25 Not helped by the obfuscatory troll you've had the mispleasure to encounter.
26 Think of it as an initiation.. ;-)
27
28 > >> default to ${PVR} but could be set to the version of a previous ebuild
29 > >> instead. The PM could compare it against INSTALL_VERSION in the VDB
30 > >> and skip build and installation if versions match.
31 >
32 > It should be a list and have empty default (*never* including the
33 > version itself), but these are also technical details.
34 > This solution would have the advantage that you could specify
35 > *full* versions and thus have even more fine-grained control when
36 > recompilations are necessary. One could also allow specify version
37 > ranges, slots, overlays, etc., perhaps even make the behaviour
38 > dependent of USE-flags, as you already mentioned, all
39 > similarl to current DEPEND syntax.
40 >
41 > The disadvantage is that it is slightly more work than -r1.1,
42 > less transparent, and easily overlooked to remove for a version bump,
43 > causing issues like these:
44 >
45 > > It will probably also cause confusion for comaintainers and
46 > > collaborators, especially when INSTALL_VERSION points to a version that
47 > > has already been removed.
48
49 So use another name that can't be confused. Perhaps REPLACES_VERSION, or
50 w/e the primadonna will allow, since we're still feeding him goats..
51 Perhaps doubt he'll want to pluralise it, in that tedious nu-skool way
52 of his. More likely he'll just use anything we discuss as an excuse
53 for more FUD.
54
55 Regards,
56 steveL
57
58 PS: Now you know just why..
59 --
60 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Avoiding rebuilds Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de>