1 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:54:08 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> > Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 |
6 |
> >> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> >> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: |
8 |
> >> > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) |
9 |
> >> > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the |
10 |
> >> > installed files (for example, -r1.1) |
11 |
> >> Or the package manager looks at changed in *DEPEND between the repo |
12 |
> >> and vdb and resolves those. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > ...assuming that the ebuild hasn't been removed, and that it can be |
15 |
> > associated correctly when overlays are involved, and that the change |
16 |
> > wasn't a change where a saved pkg_prerm uses the old dependency, not |
17 |
> > the new one, or all the other ways this breaks. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > You need to think your cunning plan the whole way through. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> It works, since it is completely equivalent to a revbump, |
22 |
> only that the unnecesary recompilation is avoided: |
23 |
> All of your problems exist (or don't exist) for usual revbumps |
24 |
> as well. |
25 |
|
26 |
At this point, I think it would be most helpful towards us reaching a |
27 |
conclusion if you agreed to refrain from commenting further until |
28 |
you've understood the problem at hand. |
29 |
|
30 |
You see, the rest of us are using "broken" to mean "broken" in a |
31 |
technical sense, based upon our understanding of how ebuilds, the VDB |
32 |
and metadata work. You seem to be using it to mean "does something you |
33 |
superficially or ideologically don't like". |
34 |
|
35 |
This is a technical discussion, and you need to read up on how things |
36 |
work before you can make a meaningful contribution. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |