| 1 |
On 2017-09-24 21:05, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If the change doesn't affect the installed code, it is encouraged to |
| 4 |
> avoid unnecessary rebuilding. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> For example, a new version of LibreOffice or Chromium depends on |
| 7 |
> libfoo, but the dev doesn't notice and already has libfoo installed so |
| 8 |
> it works for him. You also have it installed so the upgrade works for |
| 9 |
> you, then it fails for me and I file a bug report. If the dev |
| 10 |
> revbumped the ebuild, you would have to spend a couple of hours |
| 11 |
> rebuilding Chromium to get exactly the same code you had before. By |
| 12 |
> not revbumping it, he fixes the problem for me without inconveniencing |
| 13 |
> you. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I see, but of course in this case the effect would be exactly the |
| 16 |
opposite - forcing me to rebuild the core qt packages and everything |
| 17 |
that depends on them. And if this was not a mistake, it must have been |
| 18 |
clear that would happen. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It feels like a sneaky way to finally get the few remaining qt4 stragglers |
| 21 |
out of the way. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, |
| 25 |
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. |
| 26 |
Do obvious transformation on domain to reply privately _only_ on Usenet. |
Archives