1 |
Dnia 2014-07-31, o godz. 22:17:59 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Yes, exactly. We need to get dynamic-deps right if they are ever |
7 |
> > supposed to become the default. That's one of the reasons that we want |
8 |
> > to revert the problematic changes and make Portage use the default |
9 |
> > model once again. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Do we actually have some kind of list of issues with dynamic deps? |
12 |
> The only specific one that I think I've seen is with prerm and subslot |
13 |
> deps, but as was pointed out that issue actually is as much of a |
14 |
> problem with static deps unless you unmerge all the reverse-deps |
15 |
> before upgrading anything, followed by a re-merge. |
16 |
|
17 |
I already listed the major issues in my second reply to Michael. And I |
18 |
forgot about prerm() again, thanks for adding it :). |
19 |
|
20 |
> > If you are really curious, I am working hard on providing tools to fix |
21 |
> > the vdb inconsistencies caused by dynamic-deps. There were no specific |
22 |
> > data because it wasn't available until today. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > My regularly updated desktop system (2-3 days between @world updates) |
25 |
> > after disabling dynamic-deps has 77 packages needing rebuild. That |
26 |
> > number includes a few virtuals, Perl packages and other low-effort |
27 |
> > cases. And this is after the big, scary virtual/*udev changes. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > Over the next days I will obviously have more numbers. More |
30 |
> > specifically, the number of packages needing rebuild after dependency |
31 |
> > changes made by developers. It should be noted that the above number |
32 |
> > includes one-time rebuild of packages that are simply ancient. |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > There is a lot of FUD about unnecessary rebuilds. Sadly, most people |
35 |
> > seem to fight a holy war against them without realizing the real |
36 |
> > impact. In fact, more unnecessary rebuilds are caused by unnecessary |
37 |
> > USE flags than by dependency changes. Yet the same people believe in |
38 |
> > adding more flags to contain even more minor aspects of packages... |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Thank you for this. It is very helpful in gauging the likely impact |
41 |
> of having more revbumps. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> One thing I don't want to do is create a barrier to anybody who wants |
44 |
> to upgrade an eclass or do work on virtuals. I can just imagine |
45 |
> endless debates about whether splitting a virtual is worth it since it |
46 |
> will cause up to 250 rebuilds, etc. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Is there any easy way to compare tree vs installed deps using the API? |
49 |
|
50 |
Not an easy way. However, if you take the two patches I posted on |
51 |
gentoo-portage-dev [1,2] you can play a bit with @changed-deps. You can |
52 |
add a few pprint()s to the '!=' clause to see what diffs it is seeing |
53 |
after preprocessing. |
54 |
|
55 |
However, it will see some 'extra' changes from || ( foo bar:= ) |
56 |
to || ( foo:= bar:= ) due to weird portage behavior. This vdb records |
57 |
will be fixed after rebuilding the relevant packages thanks to patch |
58 |
[2]. |
59 |
|
60 |
[1]:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/4357 |
61 |
[2]:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/4358 |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Best regards, |
65 |
Michał Górny |