Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Paul Colquhoun <paulcol@×××××××××××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 05:43:35
Message-Id: 1640218.4M8YXEMeNj@bluering
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless? by Rich Freeman
1 On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 3:25:40 AM AEDT Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote:
3 > > On 26/02/18 17:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
4 > >>> Can't you whitelist packages like automake so that they don't trigger
5 > >>> rebuilds? Or at least provide a configurable whitelist (for make.conf)
6 > >>> where
7 > >>> we can add packages that don't trigger changed-deps rebuilds?
8 > >>>
9 > >>> There is no reason to rebuild anything just because of an automake
10 > >>> update.
11 > >>> This is just madness.
12 > >>
13 > >> Are you using --deep? I suspect that is why changed-deps is looking
14 > >> at build-time dependencies. I don't see why you'd need to rebuild
15 > >> something if a build-time dependency changes, unless you really care
16 > >> about building with the latest build system (in which case you
17 > >> probably would want to rebuild after an automake update).
18 > >
19 > > Yes, I use --deep. I've run into cases many times in the past where
20 > > portage
21 > > was skipping updates unless I used --deep.
22 >
23 > You might want to avoid combining both --deep and --changed-deps. I
24 > haven't tested this but I suspect it is why you're getting all the
25 > automake-related rebuilds. Granted, at present that would require two
26 > separate updates if you wanted to use both.
27 >
28 > It seems like a whitelist isn't really the right solution here. I
29 > could see having a way to tell --changed-deps to ignore build-time
30 > dependencies as useful.
31 >
32 > Of course, the real solution is revbumps whenever necessary, but
33 > getting devs to do that seems to be impossible, as everybody wants to
34 > assume that dynamic deps work.
35
36
37 I just tried this to see what was happening, and adding "--with-bdeps n" cut the number
38 of recompilations right back, even when I still had "--deep" as one of the options.
39
40
41 --
42 Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
43 Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
44 http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless? Ian Zimmerman <itz@××××××××××××.org>