| 1 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:05:58 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Your solution fails spectacularly in the following ways: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > * Ebuild removal |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Already discussed as to fail with static deps, too. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Uh, static dependencies don't behave any differently when an ebuild is |
| 11 |
removed. I don't think you understand how that works. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > * Overlays |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not an issue: Exactly the information of that ebuild |
| 16 |
> which *would* be used if you reemerge contains |
| 17 |
> the relevant data. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The association between an installed package and "the ebuild it came |
| 20 |
from" doesn't work correctly when overlays around. Again, you don't |
| 21 |
understand the issue. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > * Introduction of :=3D dependencies |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This is not a "minor update" in dependencies |
| 26 |
> and thus requires a revbump. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So what is a "minor update", and what are you planning to do to prevent |
| 29 |
what you call "useless rebuilds" when := dependencies are introduced? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > * pkg_*rm |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Not related. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Yes it is. Read and understand the previous discussion about the |
| 36 |
ruby-config issue. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives