[gentoo-user] Re: Changing dependencies without upping version ??

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2017-09-25 22:24, Michael Palimaka wrote:

> I see a few complaints in this thread, but nobody so far has
> elaborated on the problem they have with this change.

The problem is that if I want to complete the upgrade the way portage
suggests, I have to (newly) allow in and time-consumingly build _all_
the qt5 core libraries, since they depend on one another in nearly
circular fashion, and the updated qtcustomplot becomes the "camel's
nose".

I dealt with this by unmerging the few qt using apps I had installed and
finding alternatives for them.  Some of the alternatives are inferior,
but it beats this "eternal transition" qt stuff.  I'll make a prediction
but I don't expect anyone to bet: by the time all useful packages
migrate to qt5, the qt6 transition will already be in full swing.

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
Do obvious transformation on domain to reply privately _only_ on Usenet.

Re: [gentoo-user] distributed emerge

[Andrés Becerra Sandoval]

2017-09-25 6:35 GMT-05:00 Damo Brisbane :

> hi,
>
> Can someone point where I might go for parallel @world build, it is really
> for my own curiositynat this time. Currently I stage binaries for multiple
> machines on a single nfs share, but the assumption is to use instead some
> distributed filesystem. So I think I just need a recipie, pointers or ideas
> on how to distribute emerge on an @world set? I am thinking granular first,
> ie per package rather than eg distributed gcc within a single package.
>
> thank you
>


​Hello,

I think distcc might be what you look for the merging part:
​https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distcc

-- 
  Andrés Becerra Sandoval

[gentoo-user] Re: Changing dependencies without upping version ??

[Michael Palimaka]

On 09/25/2017 03:37 AM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Is this an officially approved technique??  it is DIRTY.

I see a few complaints in this thread, but nobody so far has elaborated
on the problem they have with this change.

[gentoo-user] distributed emerge

[Damo Brisbane]

hi,

Can someone point where I might go for parallel @world build, it is really
for my own curiositynat this time. Currently I stage binaries for multiple
machines on a single nfs share, but the assumption is to use instead some
distributed filesystem. So I think I just need a recipie, pointers or ideas
on how to distribute emerge on an @world set? I am thinking granular first,
ie per package rather than eg distributed gcc within a single package.

thank you

Re: [gentoo-user] Changing dependencies without upping version ??

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Montag, 25. September 2017, 02:33:13 CEST schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:51 PM, John Blinka  wrote:
> >> Is this an officially approved technique??  it is DIRTY.
> > 
> > I imagine that it is sanctioned, otherwise why would there be a
> > --changed-deps flag to emerge?  Does seem dirty.  Glad you asked the
> > question.  Would love to learn why this is allowed.  In my experience, it
> > happens quite often.
> 
> Is this recent experience in the main repository?  This is something
> QA started cracking down on maybe a year ago.  It is definitely
> problematic, because portage won't pull in the new dependency until
> you re-install the package, which means the dependency could get
> removed/etc.  I'd have to dig up the details around the policy - it
> might be allowed in very limited circumstances (there could be reasons
> to change a dep that won't actually break anything already installed).
> 
> I ended up putting --changed-deps in my update script because I'd
> rather not deal with the bugs this can cause.

I think the debate somewhere ended at "it's maintainer's call, weighing 
unnecessary rebuilds versus technical correctness".

Not sure how time-consuming a qcustomplot is.


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfri...@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

Re: [gentoo-user] Changing dependencies without upping version ??

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Monday, 25 September 2017 4:51:22 AM AEST John Blinka wrote:
> > Is this an officially approved technique??  it is DIRTY.
> 
> I imagine that it is sanctioned, otherwise why would there be a
> --changed-deps flag to emerge?  Does seem dirty.  Glad you asked the
> question.  Would love to learn why this is allowed.  In my experience, it
> happens quite often.


Well, --changed-deps is also there for when you change USE flags on your system 
to activate (or deactivate) software features.


-- 
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
  Asking for technical help in newsgroups?  Read this first:
 http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro