On 08/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Q. But what about the rebuilds? > > For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're > the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium, etc. -- just do the > revision and forget about the (quick) rebuilds.
I really wish people would stop trotting out this false argument. Not everyone has the latest and greatest hardware. Rebuilds have a real cost to end users and as such we should use them wisely. > We tell everyone to use --changed-use and --newuse if they want > things to work, so they were probably going to rebuild anyway. Who tells everyone to use these flags and where? I never use these flags day-to-day, only if I need that specific functionality for that reason > Q. But what if I maintain firefox, and I need to change IUSE? > > If the IUSE change isn't important, just make the new revision in a > branch and wait to commit it later when there are more changes > piled up. If it is important (like if its default value changes > RDEPEND), then it would have required a revision anyway. Please stop trying to force workflows on people. Using that same logic, I can make the IUSE change in-place and it would be propagated in the next version bump. > Q. But I work on a team, and we can't all work in different branches. > > If you work on a massive package and if you're collaborating with > others regularly, you can commit the new ebuild masked. This is > annoying, but is an extremely rare combination of circumstances. Again, let's not try and tell teams which workflow works best for them. > == tl;dr == > > We would be better off with respect to IUSE changes and revisions if we > deleted the --changed-use and --newuse flags right now, and just > required developers to revbump when changing IUSE. > > Package managers get simpler, documentation gets simpler, the user > interface gets simpler, and behavior becomes more uniform and predictable. > > Please let me know what you think. I disagree with this change because your proposed benefits don't hold up: > * We can delete all of the PM code for --changed-use and --newuse and > friends. As pointed out by Brian, we still need at least --changed-use even if IUSE changes in-place are banned. > * The documentation becomes much simpler: revbump if IUSE changes. We should base our policies around the cost / benefit of said policy, not how many or few words we need to write in the devmanual about it. > * Users can omit --newuse and --changed-use from their lives. They already can. > * All package managers now handle IUSE changes properly. If you want to see consistent behaviour in how package manages handle IUSE, I suggest sending patches for PMS. I don't see any problem in portage/paludis/pkgcore handling things differently. That is the point of having different package managers, after all. > * emerge runs a bit faster. Why will it run faster?