| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 21/07/14 05:06 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 6 |
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" |
| 7 |
>> <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by |
| 9 |
>>> the ebuild are changed. Nothing about dependencies. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> This has been policy for a LONG time, and we're not going to |
| 12 |
>>> change it overnight just because you protest. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Policy used to be that you'd do a revbump when you wanted users |
| 15 |
>> to reinstall stuff, and you wouldn't otherwise. The only |
| 16 |
>> complication is that sometimes you want users to reinstall stuff |
| 17 |
>> so that there's accurate dependency information available, rather |
| 18 |
>> than because something has changed. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: - One |
| 22 |
> would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) - The other one |
| 23 |
> would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the installed files |
| 24 |
> (for example, -r1.1) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point |
| 27 |
> of view :( |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
eww, no. Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things |
| 32 |
would be asking for trouble, imo. Besides, I don't think detection of |
| 33 |
when to just update VDB is the issue. The main issue that I see is |
| 34 |
- -how- VDB should be adjusted based on what changes are made to the |
| 35 |
ebuilds. For instance, if minimum versions of deps are adjusted |
| 36 |
in-place, should vdb be updated to match? what happens if the minimum |
| 37 |
version of the currently-installed dep is below the new one? etc. etc. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Also, in theory an EAPI bump with nothing else changing should be |
| 40 |
re-generatable in the VDB, but i have a gut feeling (no evidence, just |
| 41 |
a feeling) that going from say, EAPI2 to EAPI5 without doing some of |
| 42 |
the phase functions again (ie 'merge', maybe there are others that can |
| 43 |
affect VDB?) will result in a different VDB from a regular rebuild. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 47 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPObO0ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCerQEAgTgQOvCDl0dbB5sOOZ4diBNs |
| 50 |
cheQR18XFo7MsVBX3uUA/0zP1cAiWy1zAF+crrfCC42krtvGmSSiU4JG0dFo4452 |
| 51 |
=iNmo |
| 52 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives