| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:01:41 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/20/2015 12:13 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:31:45 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> 2. Subslots work correctly. Rebuilds are forced when the chosen |
| 8 |
> >> library is upgraded. Moreover, USE flag change causes a rebuild |
| 9 |
> >> when user decides to change the ffmpeg provider. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > No offense, but this argument is complete crap. You should rather |
| 13 |
> > fix portage bugs than propose to introduce tree-wide changes to |
| 14 |
> > hide them... More precisely: || ( a:= b c:= d ) is perfectly |
| 15 |
> > defined (in the "what it means" sense, not in PMS sense). When the |
| 16 |
> > package is built, if 'a' is satisfied then a (and its subslot) is |
| 17 |
> > added to the subslot list of the package; ditto for c. You end up |
| 18 |
> > with a list of subslot deps, that you can store in vdb or whatever, |
| 19 |
> > and use that to decide when to rebuild the package. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That's an interesting proposal, but I immediately find myself |
| 22 |
> questioning how closely it models reality. For example, maybe the |
| 23 |
> package links to both the a:= package and c:= package, or maybe just |
| 24 |
> to one of them. Shouldn't our model match reality as closely as |
| 25 |
> possible, as long as it's practical? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Do you have any such example ? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think we can only make the safest assumption. Even without subslot, |
| 30 |
if you consider this: || ( a b c d ), with a and c installed but |
| 31 |
package automagically deciding to use only a, how can a PM decide |
| 32 |
whether it is safe to remove a or not after the package has been |
| 33 |
merged ? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Alexis. |
Archives