On Sep 17, 2012, at 16:24, Clemens Lang wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:08:21PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> And *that* would probably put too much strain on the buildbots. It >> already sometimes takes them hours to build a certain set of ports. >> (Whenever I update the php port, for example.) > > I see no other way to have the buildbot auto-detect broken packages to > rebuild them (which would free us from having to revbump manually, which > is something we want, right?)
I don't think we ever want to stop revbumping ports. Not everyone has rev-upgrade turned on, so increasing the revision is the only way to ensure people rebuild. Having an automated way to revbump all affected ports would be good however, and rev-upgrade could play a part of that. > The process could probably be optimized to activate sets of > non-conflicting packages at the same time (I'm thinking graph coloring). > > The time-consuming part would probably be activating and deactivating, > since updating the binary database would not be necessary (the > information is already in the registry on the buildbot) and scanning > should be rather quick, since only these packages and their dependencies > are installed. So in conclusion, the whole process would probably be > I/O-bound. > > The case that rev-upgrade actually finds problems and triggers rebuilds > would probably be rather uncommon (how many of the changes you commited > required revbumps?) It happens occasionally. libpng 1.5 recently. Every time libffi's version increases. I've been putting off updating libgsasl because it'll need revbumps on other ports. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
