1 |
On 27/10/19 00:55, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 12:14:59AM +0100, Michael Everitt wrote: |
3 |
>> On 26/10/19 23:35, William Hubbs wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 11:17:18AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 11:14 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 05:59 Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>>>> |
8 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:03:39 -0700 |
9 |
>>>>>> Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
>>>>>> |
11 |
>>>>>>> not used anymore |
12 |
>>>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>>> Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/695698 |
14 |
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> |
15 |
>>>>>> Its likely this removal will cause the same kinds of problems faced by |
16 |
>>>>>> the recent virtual/pam removal, just its more insidious, as the |
17 |
>>>>>> dependency on the virtual is hidden away inside an eclass. |
18 |
>>>>>> |
19 |
>>>>>> But this still means that anything users have already installed will |
20 |
>>>>>> still depend on this, and without --changed-deps=y, it will break |
21 |
>>>>>> portage's resolution of anything currently installed using this crate. |
22 |
>>>>>> |
23 |
>>>>>> You can work-around this by -r1 bumping everything that used this |
24 |
>>>>>> eclass .... but this just goes to show why there's policy against |
25 |
>>>>>> eclasses changing the dependencies of their consumers without any |
26 |
>>>>>> consumer involvement. |
27 |
>>>>>> |
28 |
>>>>> In most if not all cases, this is just a build-time dependency. Do we |
29 |
>>>>> really have all these problems for build-time only dependencies? |
30 |
>>>>> |
31 |
>>>> Yes. Because of --with-bdeps. |
32 |
>>> I disagree, build-time dependencies can change in place because they |
33 |
>>> only affect the build. The problem with virtual/pam was that it was a |
34 |
>>> runtime dependency as well. |
35 |
>>> |
36 |
>>> William |
37 |
>> The problem is that portage defaults to --with-bdeps=y, so any emerging of |
38 |
>> packages now triggers anything that has a build-dep change, unless, as |
39 |
>> previously stated, you exclude that case or change the defaults. |
40 |
> Sure, but rebuild changes are exactly what you would want. that's how |
41 |
> software written in go gets rebuilt for example, which is exactly what |
42 |
> you want when go is upgraded. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I agree that some rebuilds might be unnecessary, but if you don't like |
45 |
> compiling/building software Gentoo isn't for you. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> William |
48 |
> |
49 |
There's a subtle difference between compiling for compiling's sake, and |
50 |
compiling with good reason .. especially for those who don't have copious |
51 |
quantities of free cpu resources at their disposal 24/7/365 ... just sayin' ... |
52 |
|
53 |
And not everyone is using rust, go, java and systemd as their prime movers, |
54 |
even if you are .. *shudders* |