| 1 |
2011/11/11 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Tom???? Chv??tal wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi guys, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> In last 3 days i recompiled chromium 3x |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> 1x rebuild for cups useflag |
| 8 |
>> 1x update |
| 9 |
>> 1x rebuild for cups useflag |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> <snip> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Chromium moves fast and you're obviously running unstable keywording. |
| 14 |
> Meaning you're *intentionally* getting every beta channel release. |
| 15 |
I am getting dev releases... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Nicely phrased, your complaint is that having ran unstable keywords, |
| 18 |
> it's moving too fast for your taste. Stable keywords seem like an |
| 19 |
> obvious solution to it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It already happened multiple times in the past and i am not bitching |
| 22 |
about the updates but to updates to ebuild without bump... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> One thing that is less obvious is that there are essentially two |
| 25 |
> flavors of unstable chromium- dev and beta. Currently beta is 17.*, |
| 26 |
> dev is 16.*. If you don't want bleeding edge, but want faster than |
| 27 |
> stable, pmask 17.*. |
| 28 |
As i said i am on 16 which is in testing, beta series is masked. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That said... you're complaining that having ran unstable, you're |
| 31 |
> having to rebuild too much. Stable exists for a reason. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Either way, I suggest folks flip through the changelog- not seeing |
| 34 |
> anything egregious in bumping, refactoring appears to go out during |
| 35 |
> upstream version bumps. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> For the cups rebuild referenced above is a build compilation failure |
| 38 |
> that was rolled out in existing versions (or in version bumps). It |
| 39 |
> may be an annoyance to Tommy that emerge -N picked it up, but for |
| 40 |
> folks hitting the build failure, they obviously view it a bit |
| 41 |
> differently (as evidenced by a fair amount of bitching on the bug in |
| 42 |
> question). |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> If you really, really want to keep running bleeding edge, rebuilding |
| 45 |
> for every change that occurs on it but selectively slowing down |
| 46 |
> certain builds... well, patch portage and mangle the existing vcs |
| 47 |
> rebuild code to be usable for other packages, adding a feature along |
| 48 |
> the lines of "I want to run bleeding edge X, but rebuild it only |
| 49 |
> weekly". |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Barring that, the solutions for your user configuration problem are |
| 52 |
> above. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
The build issue was with -cups so useflag was removed and hard |
| 55 |
dependency enabled, fine with me. |
| 56 |
But why the fuck the bump was issued next day still hard-depending on |
| 57 |
it and in day after that this commit arrived in: |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/www-client/chromium/chromium-16.0.912.32.ebuild?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
You are telling me this is build time failure fix, you are telling me |
| 62 |
that people that already had pulled in that cups could not sleep |
| 63 |
thanks to it and survive for another week to get the flag back with |
| 64 |
bump? |
Archives