| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:22:54PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/14/2017 08:01 AM, Jason Zaman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I'll give an example where revbumps are significantly inferior to |
| 5 |
> > --changed-use. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > ... With --changed-use, only the people who need it (ie selinux |
| 8 |
> > users) will rebuild and everyone is happy (selinux users because the |
| 9 |
> > program now works and non-selinux users because they did not rebuild |
| 10 |
> > for no reason). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> But this benefit exists only for Portage users, and can only be obtained |
| 13 |
> by throwing the others under the bus. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (If you change RDEPEND, you need to create a new revision anyway: |
| 16 |
> https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20151011-summary.txt) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
SELinux policy packages are not strictly RDEPENDs, portage will label |
| 19 |
packages as they are installed properly. if the policy package wasnt |
| 20 |
installed by the time the package is installed, you can manually label a |
| 21 |
package with rlpkg <pkgname>. but obviously having things jsut work is |
| 22 |
better. and they arnt DEPEND because you dont need them to build the |
| 23 |
package. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Any i know of no selinux users using other package managers. There are |
| 26 |
no policies for them so they wouldnt work anyway. so no really throwing |
| 27 |
them under the bus. I dont think the other package managers label |
| 28 |
packages properly during install anyway even if there was a policy |
| 29 |
written. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So there still isnt a reason to revbump a package when 99% of the world |
| 32 |
will not want it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- Jason |
Archives