-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/07/14 04:28 PM, hasufell wrote: > > Reality check, please. (btw... I didn't come up with the subslot > idea, so maybe check with those guys about useless rebuilds) > > > Removing dynamic deps is an easy way to improve the strictness of > portage, adhere better to PMS and improve compatibility with other > PMs. > > After that, we can discuss if there is a _sane_ way to avoid such > rebuilds. >
subslot rebuilds aren't supposed to be useless; however if the subslot is changed unnecessarily then yes, it can trigger those rebuilds. I wonder if there may be some form of extension we could add to portage, such that it could do a VDB-only "re-emerge" somehow, when the in-tree ebuild doesn't match the in-VDB one. If that could be implemented properly (and i'm not sure that it could, tbh), maybe that would help reduce issues with dynamic deps, too... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlPNewMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB67gEAnK/FOF+6xQjXg3R3in3B/WgG loDxg1XOpMDR6NQPE0QA/jeDo3Vxt5qawbohvpnoWVwPwxbpHSfWkQ0UIwnQcDRw =EiHA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
