Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Avoiding rebuilds
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:50:19
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Avoiding rebuilds by "Steven J. Long"
1 Steven J. Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
2 >>
3 >> > It will probably also cause confusion for comaintainers and
4 >> > collaborators, especially when INSTALL_VERSION points to a version
5 >> > that has already been removed.
6 >
7 > So use another name that can't be confused.
9 Perhaps there is a misunderstanding: I did not understand that the
10 confusion is caused by the name, but by the lack of information
11 about its entries:
13 For instance, if you bump a version, you must never forget to
14 check whether this variable needs to be updated.
15 Moreover, if you want to update that variable, you should
16 understand precisely why which version is listed here
17 in order to decide whether a recompile from that version
18 might be needed with the current bump or not.
19 This decision is not necessarily easy if the corresponding
20 referred ebuilds are already in the CVS attic.
22 Of course, if in doubt, it is a safe strategy to always
23 remove that variable (it can only cause redundant compilation,
24 while it can be fatal if you leave a version falsely).
26 Therefore, an automatism to "forget" this variable automatically
27 if not changed would be preferrable, but one would need a mechanism
28 for this (I have only some strange ideas for such a mechanisms:
29 One could encode the current ebuild version into the name of
30 that variable; or one could require that the current version
31 is the first entry in this variable [although, semanatically,
32 it is ignored and just serves as a "proof" that the ebuild
33 maintainer checked that variable]).


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Avoiding rebuilds "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>