Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: "Abraham Marín Pérez" <tecnic5@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:00:35
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency? by Remy Blank
1 Remy Blank escribió:
2 > Abraham Marín Pérez wrote:
3 >
4 >> That is indeed true, however, it will always be better keeping things
5 >> right than breaking and fixing as a rule, don't you think?
6 >>
7 >
8 > The thing is, you will *have to* break things at some point anyway. In
9 > your case, it will be when you decide to update LIB (because you want to
10 > have the new features, or because another package needs the new
11 > version). Between the LIB update and the APP recompilation, APP will be
12 > broken.
13 >
14 > Even worse, if you don't know that the LIB update will break APP, you
15 > might not notice immediately that APP is broken, or you might only get
16 > some strange results from APP. That's where revdep-rebuild steps in: it
17 > can tell you that APP is broken, and what's needed to fix it. So you're
18 > better off running it consistently after your regular updates.
19 >
20 >
22 I'm not talking about not needing revdep-rebuild nor saying non-deep
23 updates would prevent breaking dependencies, I just said that non-deep
24 updates will *reduce* the amount of packages that need to be rebuilt. I
25 systematically run revdep-rebuild after every update world (in fact,
26 it's all in a script which performs update world, revdep-rebuild and
27 update-eix), but I'd rather have it reinstalling 2 packages than 20.
28 That's all.
30 Abraham
32 --
33 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list