| 1 |
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 00:06 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 2 |
[...] |
| 3 |
> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: |
| 4 |
> > - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) |
| 5 |
> > - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the |
| 6 |
> > installed files (for example, -r1.1) |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point of |
| 9 |
> > view :( |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'm afraid it couldn't. The major problem is not knowing *when* to |
| 12 |
> migrate metadata, portage usually gets that right. The problem is in |
| 13 |
> getting the correct output which is often near to impossible. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But, isn't it something up to developer in that case? I mean, we should |
| 17 |
have a list of things that deserve that VDB regeneration and, then, make |
| 18 |
the -r1.1 revbump instead of the major one. |
Archives