| 1 |
On July 22, 2014 11:25:05 AM CEST, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 10:32 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: |
| 3 |
>[...] |
| 4 |
>> I find it somewhat curious that the difference between ~arch and |
| 5 |
>> stable hasn't been brought up in this discussion yet. IMHO a user on |
| 6 |
>> ~arch should expect a higher number of rebuilds, it _is_ after all |
| 7 |
>> testing, whereby at the point it reaches stable, the deps are |
| 8 |
>> hopefully more likely to be correct to begin with. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Does anyone have any insight into where these changes most often |
| 11 |
>occur? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>Well, I have seen multiple times of this kind of fixes being noticed by |
| 15 |
>people running really old stable boxes. They notice them when they |
| 16 |
>update to latest stable and, then, we need to fix depends raising the |
| 17 |
>versions usually :/ |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>Maybe this discussion should be focused on trying to think about how to |
| 20 |
>standardize a way for distinguish between revision bumps needing full |
| 21 |
>rebuild or only VDB updates :| |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As someone who regularly adds in dependencies without bumping (adding USE=selinux dependencies to the proper SELinux policy) because that would trigger lots of totally unnecessary rebuilds: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
+1 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Wkr, |
| 28 |
Sven |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives