Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 06:51:46
Message-Id: 20140801085157.37145213@pomiot.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Rich Freeman
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies