Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] virtual/cargo: drop virtual
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 01:42:59
Message-Id: ae6ef8ab-b1e8-1bf8-088e-02c0b97cb1ac@veremit.xyz
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] virtual/cargo: drop virtual by William Hubbs
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*

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] virtual/cargo: drop virtual James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o>