| 1 |
On Saturday 14 June 2014 11:50:29 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This would be suicide for Gentoo as a distro. Organizations that have a |
| 11 |
> dedicated build server and a standardized /etc/portage config tree |
| 12 |
> pushed to all user machines could rebuild half of @world once a week. |
| 13 |
> Individual users running Gentoo on a single workstation or server can't |
| 14 |
> and won't. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, you have to rebuild half of everything anyway. (And if you don't want to |
| 17 |
do that - update less often) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Last updates on my notebook had on average half a dozen packages needing to be |
| 20 |
rebuilt due to preserved-libs. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
How is that better than automated rebuilds that actually reduce the |
| 23 |
interaction I have with that machine? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'd strongly prefer a coherent policy for this whole library versioning |
| 27 |
situation, maybe per-library (so instead of forcing everything to use subslots |
| 28 |
we say "all consumers of this lib have to, and ignore others for now) |
Archives