Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:04:00
Message-Id: CAGfcS_m1rBLw7aMcuMKOSJA3C2U5G9ZJWQTUeof5CE5YLfHtKw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds by "William L. Thomson Jr."
1 On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
2 <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
3 >
4 > I am aware in a way. Depends on how implemented. This has to hit
5 > package.env files. But what you see below comes from a dependency list.
6 > I have packages with even more deps.
7 >
8
9 If you want to cope with poor package maintenance practices you might
10 also need to scan the entire repository to find packages which had a
11 dependency added after the package in question was installed. I
12 forget if portage does this currently - I do remember this being the
13 topic of a fair bit of debate a while back. I'm pretty sure failing
14 to revbump when dependencies are changed is considered a QA issue for
15 this reason.
16
17 --
18 Rich