Richard Freeman wrote:
On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably updated
(every month or more frequently). The alternative is triggering a
several-
hundred-package rebuild when some base library package updates, because
all those LDFLAGS respecting changes weren't rev-bumped and the user's
installed set is still ignoring them, and thus --as-needed.
Interesting - I was looking at it in the opposite way.
Not having as-needed means that I /might/ have to rebuild that one
package unnecessarily at some point in the future - if it isn't
upgraded first for some other reason.
Rev-bumping the build means that I /will/ have to rebuild that one
package for certain - right now.
I think we can all at least agree that this is a gray area as far as
the INTENT of the (apparently unwritten) policy goes.
I would like to echo Markos's comment that having policies written
down, if only to point stubborn maintainers to them, would be
helpful. The other reason to have them written is so that they go
through some kind of review, and there is some way of challenging them
if they no longer make sense.
In any case, I think we're making a pretty big deal about a pretty
small issue - we can probably all afford to think about this a little
more and move on...
Rich
I'm with Duncan as well. I update pretty regular, usually daily, just
because I want to update a few packages at a time. If I do a truly HUGE
update, what is it that broke what? If I do 3 to 10 packages and
something breaks, I can go look at those 3 to 10 packages for either a
version mismatch or just a plain old broken package. If I have to
update everything at once, where does one even start to look? I have
almost a thousand packages here and I would hate to have to go look for
a needle in a haystack. That's a large haystack to go looking in.
I might also mention that I see rebuilds from time to time where it
looks like nothing has changed. I always let them rebuild anyway
because I know there is something different under the hood that I don't
see. Open Office is one that I dread tho. lol Even tho it would mean
a gradual system rebuild, I'd say that I'm for it. As they get changed,
bump them up a notch and let them get rebuilt.
Back to my hole now.
Dale
:-) :-)
