| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly |
| 8 |
>>> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. |
| 9 |
>>> This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get |
| 10 |
>>> work done, not baby-sit their system. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> Seriously, how many times do you re-install packages out of binpkgs on a |
| 13 |
>> _build_ system? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> Frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Among other things, it's |
| 16 |
> a fast way to roll-back to a working version when a new version goes |
| 17 |
> haywire, for whatever reason. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I strongly recommend that users enable FEATURES=buildpkg for a host of |
| 20 |
> reasons, and having it break or cause additional complications for them is |
| 21 |
> not a good thing. Of course I also strongly recommend lafilefixer (based |
| 22 |
> on your blog, BTW), too, but yeah, people /do/ sometimes reinstall from |
| 23 |
> binpkgs on a build system. Having binpkgs around for my build system has |
| 24 |
> saved my behind a number of times! |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Same here. That has saved me a lot of time and frustration in the past |
| 29 |
as well. I have had buildpkg set in make.conf for ages. I use it |
| 30 |
regularly and would not want to have that messed up. I recently used it |
| 31 |
when a KDE upgrade went bust. Without being able to go back to the old |
| 32 |
binaries, I would have had almost a day of compiling and no GUI at all. |
| 33 |
With it, just a hour or so for it to unpack and put it back. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Some people may not have it set or use it but there are people that do. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Dale |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
:-) :-) |
Archives