Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

Daniel Frey wrote: > On 03/01/18 23:33, zlg wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:22:57PM -0600, Dale wrote: >>> P. S.  On the rare occasion I want to add something to the world file, I >>> either do it directly or use --select y to override the -1 in >>> make.conf.  That helps keep the world file

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 03/01/18 23:33, zlg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:22:57PM -0600, Dale wrote: >> >> P. S.  On the rare occasion I want to add something to the world file, I >> either do it directly or use --select y to override the -1 in >> make.conf.  That helps keep the world file from getting cluttered

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:51:04 -0600, Dale wrote: > > I recently took --oneshot out of EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS due to failing to > > find --select y; now I can add it back in. Thanks for the tip! > For a while, I had to remove it to add things to the world file, or add > it directly.  I don't know if

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

zlg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:22:57PM -0600, Dale wrote: >> Ian Zimmerman wrote: >>> On 2018-02-27 11:02, Neil Bothwick wrote: >>> A combination of --changed-deps, --with-bdeps=y and --deep is bound to result in plenty of unnecessary re-emerging. >>> So, what _is_ the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:22:57PM -0600, Dale wrote: > Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > On 2018-02-27 11:02, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > >> A combination of --changed-deps, --with-bdeps=y and --deep is bound to > >> result in plenty of unnecessary re-emerging. > > So, what _is_ the recommended set of

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/27/2018 03:30 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > --with-bdeps=n. Once a package is installed, it doesn't matter what > happens to its build deps. FWIW, the rationale for enabling bdeps by default for "upgrade" actions is that the old build deps are already installed; so if there's a major

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 18:08:48 +0100, tu...@posteo.de wrote: > > A combination of --changed-deps, --with-bdeps=y and --deep is bound to > > result in plenty of unnecessary re-emerging. > > Hi Neil, > > .andwhat do you suggest instead? --with-bdeps=n. Once a package is installed, it

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2018-02-27 12:45, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I use --with-bdeps=n because I really don't care that much about >> build-time deps, other than stuff that is going to get updated anyway >> like gcc. These packages don't

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2018-02-27 11:02, Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> A combination of --changed-deps, --with-bdeps=y and --deep is bound to >> result in plenty of unnecessary re-emerging. > So, what _is_ the recommended set of emerge flags for regular daily or > weekly updates (assuming no binary

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 2018-02-27 12:45, Rich Freeman wrote: > I use --with-bdeps=n because I really don't care that much about > build-time deps, other than stuff that is going to get updated anyway > like gcc. These packages don't even need to be installed for software > to work correctly, and if a dev does miss

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Wols Lists wrote: > > If I emerge a new utility program (such as lame), I will change my > global flags to tell other programs to use it. That is what > --changed-deps is for - so the programs that were originally compiled > without

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 27/02/18 17:43, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > The --changed-deps flag, on the other hand, is a crutch for when > developers make in-place edits to ebuilds and don't make the necessary > revision bump. I believe the --changed-deps flag is ALSO for USERS who want to change settings on their

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/27/2018 12:05 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: >> >> When I read this, I realize I don't understand the difference between >> these two options. Or to be more accurate, I know that --deep means >> looking at dependencies

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2018-02-27 16:44, Paul Colquhoun wrote: > >> > > Yes, I use --deep. I've run into cases many times in the past >> > > where portage was skipping updates unless I used --deep. >> > >> > You might want to avoid

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/27/2018 12:05 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > When I read this, I realize I don't understand the difference between > these two options. Or to be more accurate, I know that --deep means > looking at dependencies beyond the first level; but isn't that just a > superset of those found by

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 2018-02-27 11:02, Neil Bothwick wrote: > A combination of --changed-deps, --with-bdeps=y and --deep is bound to > result in plenty of unnecessary re-emerging. So, what _is_ the recommended set of emerge flags for regular daily or weekly updates (assuming no binary packages)? -- Please don't

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/27 11:02, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:15:24 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > >> luky you...I got 462 packages to recompile... > > > > > > Ooh! Bloat warning! > > > > It got even worse just today. > > > > Arch Linux is starting to look really, really tasty right

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 2018-02-27 16:44, Paul Colquhoun wrote: > > > Yes, I use --deep. I've run into cases many times in the past > > > where portage was skipping updates unless I used --deep. > > > > You might want to avoid combining both --deep and --changed-deps. When I read this, I realize I don't understand

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:15:24 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> luky you...I got 462 packages to recompile... > > > > Ooh! Bloat warning! > > It got even worse just today. > > Arch Linux is starting to look really, really tasty right about now... A combination of --changed-deps,

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 27/02/18 01:55, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Monday, 26 February 2018 18:42:33 GMT tu...@posteo.de wrote: Hi Peter, luky you...I got 462 packages to recompile... Ooh! Bloat warning! It got even worse just today. Arch Linux is starting to look really, really tasty right about now...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 3:25:40 AM AEDT Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > On 26/02/18 17:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> Can't you whitelist packages like automake so that they don't trigger > >>> rebuilds? Or at least

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

Sorry...a typo... It has to be 463 packages NOT 4563 packages... Cheers Meino On 02/27 04:08, tu...@posteo.de wrote: > On 02/26 11:55, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Monday, 26 February 2018 18:42:33 GMT tu...@posteo.de wrote: > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > luky you...I got 462 packages to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/26 11:55, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Monday, 26 February 2018 18:42:33 GMT tu...@posteo.de wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > luky you...I got 462 packages to recompile... > > Ooh! Bloat warning! > > -- > Regards, > Peter. > > And...after a nigth of compilation all that packages I synced

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Monday, 26 February 2018 18:42:33 GMT tu...@posteo.de wrote: > Hi Peter, > > luky you...I got 462 packages to recompile... Ooh! Bloat warning! -- Regards, Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Monday, 26 February 2018 15:24:40 GMT Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/26/2018 10:16 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > Well, I'm on amd64, not ~amd64, and this morning portage wanted to > > remerge 217 packages. Removing --changed-deps reduced that to one: > > sys-devel/llvm. > You do need to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/26 03:16, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Monday, 26 February 2018 14:52:25 GMT Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:46:00 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Nikos Chantziaras > wrote: > > >> I've been using --changed-deps when

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/26/2018 11:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Of course, the real solution is revbumps whenever necessary, but > getting devs to do that seems to be impossible, as everybody wants to > assume that dynamic deps work. > We don't even need revbumps here. I'm sure there's a great historical

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 26/02/18 17:59, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Can't you whitelist packages like automake so that they don't trigger >>> rebuilds? Or at least provide a configurable whitelist (for make.conf) >>> where >>> we can add

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 26/02/18 17:59, Rich Freeman wrote: Can't you whitelist packages like automake so that they don't trigger rebuilds? Or at least provide a configurable whitelist (for make.conf) where we can add packages that don't trigger changed-deps rebuilds? There is no reason to rebuild anything just

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 26/02/18 17:24, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> On 02/26/2018 10:16 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: >>> >>> >>> Well, I'm on amd64, not ~amd64, and this morning portage wanted to >>> remerge >>> 217 packages. Removing

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 26/02/18 17:24, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 02/26/2018 10:16 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: Well, I'm on amd64, not ~amd64, and this morning portage wanted to remerge 217 packages. Removing --changed-deps reduced that to one: sys-devel/llvm. You do need to reinstall those. The latest

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On 02/26/2018 10:16 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > Well, I'm on amd64, not ~amd64, and this morning portage wanted to remerge > 217 packages. Removing --changed-deps reduced that to one: sys-devel/llvm. > You do need to reinstall those. The latest (un)stable versions of automake are hard-coded

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Monday, 26 February 2018 14:52:25 GMT Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:46:00 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> I've been using --changed-deps when doing a world upgrade ever since > >> the > >> news

[gentoo-user] Re: Is --changed-deps going to be *that* useless?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:46:00 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> I've been using --changed-deps when doing a world upgrade ever since the >> news item that recommended it. >> >> However, today, this is what --changed-deps