| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> The main issue that I see is |
| 6 |
>> - -how- VDB should be adjusted based on what changes are made to the |
| 7 |
>> ebuilds. For instance, if minimum versions of deps are adjusted |
| 8 |
>> in-place, should vdb be updated to match? what happens if the minimum |
| 9 |
>> version of the currently-installed dep is below the new one? etc. etc. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> All these problems disappear with minor revisions: |
| 12 |
> You have to "install" the minor revisions just like any major revision, |
| 13 |
> just that some phases will be shortcut. |
| 14 |
> In particular, if the new dependencies are not satisfied, you get |
| 15 |
> conflicts as usual if you would want to upgrade to a new version |
| 16 |
> with dependencies not being satisfied. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Other problems appear, though. Documentation is installed in a ${PF} |
| 19 |
subdir, so install locations actually do change when updating the |
| 20 |
minor revision. Also some method for updating binary packages would be |
| 21 |
needed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
All in all, I'm not convinced if the cure wouldn't be worse than the |
| 24 |
disease here. It would introduce another level of complexity, in order |
| 25 |
to avoid a few rebuilds. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ulrich |
Archives