1 |
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200 |
4 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: |
6 |
>> - One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) |
7 |
>> - The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the |
8 |
>> installed files (for example, -r1.1) |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point of |
11 |
>> view :( |
12 |
> |
13 |
> This in no way solves the problem. Consider the following course of |
14 |
> events: |
15 |
> |
16 |
> User installs foo-1.1-r1 |
17 |
> Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1 |
18 |
> foo-1.1* is removed from the tree |
19 |
> User syncs |
20 |
|
21 |
An updates-like mechanism would help here, since the updates could |
22 |
persist longer. |
23 |
|
24 |
Also, the user is probably going to end up uninstalling foo anyway or |
25 |
updating it to a newer revision, which means that whatever was broken |
26 |
with -r1 will tend to become a bit of a moot issue. Portage doesn't |
27 |
really support hanging onto PVs that aren't in the tree all that well |
28 |
to begin with. |
29 |
|
30 |
Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread |
31 |
- a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. If we come up |
32 |
with a good clean solution that avoids rebuilds in a half-dozen |
33 |
specific circumstances and we agree to only use it in those |
34 |
circumstances, there is no reason we can't use it, even if there is |
35 |
some other circumstance that will still require a revbump. I'm |
36 |
sensing in this thread that we're forcing ourselves to choose between |
37 |
a hack that can be applied 100% of the time but which can break |
38 |
randomly, or a hypothetical perfect solution that never breaks but |
39 |
which will probably never exist either. A solution that works 80% of |
40 |
the time and never breaks as long as it is properly applied is an |
41 |
acceptable compromise. |
42 |
|
43 |
Rich |