| 1 |
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:07:28 -0800 |
| 2 |
Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > So they are not really the same thing at all.I'm not saying they're |
| 5 |
> > the same, I'm saying it looks like @preserved-rebuild does a subset |
| 6 |
> > of the things revdep-rebuild does. Why run @preserved-rebuild |
| 7 |
> > followed by revdep-rebuild if the end result is the same as running |
| 8 |
> > revdep-rebuild? I'm sure I'm missing something here but I don't |
| 9 |
> > know what it is. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
OK, I see what you mean. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm a pessimistic sysadmin who's written a lot of code. I know bug |
| 14 |
factories when I see one :-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
@preserved-rebuild is an excellent idea, but I haven't seen anything |
| 17 |
yet to convince me that it is bug-free enough yet to the point where I |
| 18 |
can drop revdep-rebuild entirely. So I still want the safety net of |
| 19 |
running revdep-rebuild occasionally just in case there's something |
| 20 |
@preserved-rebuild missed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It's also a good way to find bugs in @preserved-rebuild |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 26 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives