| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 21/07/14 04:28 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Reality check, please. (btw... I didn't come up with the subslot |
| 7 |
> idea, so maybe check with those guys about useless rebuilds) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Removing dynamic deps is an easy way to improve the strictness of |
| 11 |
> portage, adhere better to PMS and improve compatibility with other |
| 12 |
> PMs. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> After that, we can discuss if there is a _sane_ way to avoid such |
| 15 |
> rebuilds. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
subslot rebuilds aren't supposed to be useless; however if the subslot |
| 20 |
is changed unnecessarily then yes, it can trigger those rebuilds. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I wonder if there may be some form of extension we could add to |
| 23 |
portage, such that it could do a VDB-only "re-emerge" somehow, when |
| 24 |
the in-tree ebuild doesn't match the in-VDB one. If that could be |
| 25 |
implemented properly (and i'm not sure that it could, tbh), maybe that |
| 26 |
would help reduce issues with dynamic deps, too... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPNewMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB67gEAnK/FOF+6xQjXg3R3in3B/WgG |
| 33 |
loDxg1XOpMDR6NQPE0QA/jeDo3Vxt5qawbohvpnoWVwPwxbpHSfWkQ0UIwnQcDRw |
| 34 |
=EiHA |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives