| 1 |
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:13:49 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:03:28 +1000 |
| 5 |
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > How often does this situation even come up? If 9/10 times the |
| 7 |
> > > libraries are set up as maintainers expect them to be, it is |
| 8 |
> > > probably better to deal with the odd unnecessary rebuild until |
| 9 |
> > > somebody spots it, rather than going without support for slot |
| 10 |
> > > operator deps. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > With respect, "good enough" is not a very high standard to aim for. |
| 13 |
> > In my opinion, adding unnecessary subslot dependencies is no |
| 14 |
> > different to adding overly-wide dependencies. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> There's a world of difference between a horrible breakage and an |
| 17 |
> occasional unnecessary compile. If users are concerned about how they |
| 18 |
> spend their CPU time, they're using the wrong distribution. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
there is something wrong in the way its done if there are |
| 21 |
'occasional unnecessary compiles' |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
'horrible breakage' is mitigated by preserve-libs and running |
| 24 |
@preserved-rebuild as soon as possible has the same end result avoiding |
| 25 |
useless rebuilds. |
Archives