Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is it a bug if revdep-rebuild catches something that preserved-rebuild doesn't?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 16/08/2013 02:00, »Q« wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:16:25 +0200
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/08/2013 09:30, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> When running:
>>>
>>>   emerge @preserved-rebuild
>>>
>>> and nothing is found that needs a rebuild, but:
>>>
>>>   revdep-rebuild -i
>>>
>>> does find something, should it be considered a bug with the
>>> preserved-rebuild mechanism and be reported, or is this expected to
>>> happen from to time?
>>
>> The latter, it happens from time to time. I see it here about once
>> every 2 months or so (i.e. seldom). I suppose this is the best we can
>> expect, seeing as how it all works:
>>
>> @preserved-rebuild tries to remember everything that uses everything
>> and detect changes, this will never be 100%,
>> revdep-rebuild actively looks for brokenness and still sometimes gets
>> it wrong (dynamic plugin modules anyone?)
>>
>> The specifics depend on the exact package. Maybe also file a bug so
>> Zac can look it over just in case there in a useful tweak he can make
>
> I thought the use of subslots was supposed to make revdep-rebuild
> obsolete someday.
>
>

I doubt that day will ever arrive.

subslots are a way for devs to tell portage that the condition
revdep-rebuild detects can happen, and to rebuild stuff as part of the
emerge.

So what happens if the subslot is wrong or missing in the ebuild?
Portage can't detect that and humans leave such stuff out all the time.

So I think revdep-rebuild is going to stick around for ever, even if it
is just in a double-check-stuff and I-got-your-back type role

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com