-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:05:32 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:41:39 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I wonder if there may be some form of
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
As has been mentioned or alluded to before, this is fine as long as
end-users --sync when the dependency change is still in the tree.
However, if that doesn't happen then we still end up with the issue.
Of course, if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/07/14 05:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19
Consider the following:
1. A depends on B, both are installed,
2. dependency on B is
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!) [...]
[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies
There's one more thing I'd like to ask about:
For Minor linking change w/ dependency
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!) [...]
[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 16:05:34
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!) [...]
[0]
On 7/27/14, 4:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
With dynamic deps you'd need to revbump if there is a linking change.
Otherwise portage would just allow the dependency to be removed, and
then linking will break, since the executable is unnecessarily linked
to the dependency (in that scenario).
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency
resolution.
It's actually very easy if you do away with all the things that are
making it unnecessarily complicated... Nearly all of the complexity is
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
It seems really tricky to correctly reason about dependency
resolution.
It's actually very easy if you do away with all
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:09:05 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
It seems really tricky to correctly reason about
On 28 July 2014 02:42, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
One thing I would question in that table is applied immediately (but
can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working)). How can dynamically
removing an unused dependency cause something to break, setting
aside bugs in the package
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2014 02:42, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
One thing I would question in that table is applied immediately (but
can break hard when dynamic-deps stop working)). How can dynamically
removing an
On 28 July 2014 03:52, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why? Is this about removing an unused dependency?
3. Gentoo simply tweaks the ebuild and doesn't bump [A]
What is [A]? What ebuild was tweaked, and how was it tweaked?
Here, A is the derived version of the ebuild of Foo the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages
without recompiling everything that depends on them?
Well that's never worked properly or consistently to begin with
Please answer the question?
//Peter
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:02:05 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages
without recompiling everything that depends on them?
Well that's never worked properly or
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages
without recompiling everything that depends on them?
Well that's never worked properly or
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:16:58 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize
packages without recompiling
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!)
Michał Górny wrote:
Consider the following:
1. A depends on B, both are installed,
2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B thanks
to dynamic-deps,
3. B is treecleaned (nothing depends on it),
So far I follow.
4. old version of A is removed (user doesn't update
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:51:13 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get
updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above.
Rewriting VDB won't help if the user doesn't sync at the right time.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19
Consider the following:
1. A depends on B, both are installed,
2. dependency on B is removed, emerge --depclean uninstalls B thanks
to dynamic-deps,
3. B is treecleaned (nothing
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 22:51:13
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se napisał(a):
What is the purpose of keeping only dependencies as-they-were when
the package was installed, if the package manager does not somehow
benefit from that information in the future?
You have to ask the one who implemented
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 17:08:27
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 10:42:19
Consider the following:
1. A depends on B, both are installed,
2. dependency on B is removed, emerge
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 17:08:27
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
I'd think that portage should update vdb as soon as it detects the
dependency change. Then B would no longer depend on A in vdb. It
shouldn't
On 28 July 2014 08:56, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com
wrote:
To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get
updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above.
Rewriting VDB won't help if the user doesn't sync at the right time.
Indeed. pkgmove has
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
But, in that case you can put the necessary ebuilds into your overlay
and then portage can make everything right.
Oh? Please explain to us a) how the overlay interaction *actually* works
with dynamic dependencies currently,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2014 08:56, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com
wrote:
To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get
updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above.
Rewriting VDB
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
But, in that case you can put the necessary ebuilds into your overlay
and then portage can make everything right.
Oh? Please explain
On 28 July 2014 09:34, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
and if it doesn't work for them,
they'll sync in the updates one way or another (using an overlay if
necessary).
However, in the case the package gets removed from tree, an updates based
approach would allow the dependencies to be
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2014 09:34, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
and if it doesn't work for them,
they'll sync in the updates one way or another (using an overlay if
necessary).
However, in the case the package gets
2014-07-27 23:33 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
But, in that case you can put the necessary ebuilds into your overlay
and then portage can make everything right.
Oh? Please explain to us a) how the overlay interaction
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Using an extension like -rX.Y seems odd; at the very least, I think
an incremental variable or something along that line in the ebuild
would work better.
It would also account for changes in eclasses, which any scheme bound
to the ebuild's filename
It seems like a simple before/after comparison of active useflags and the text
of the src_* functions (skipping build and install if they are completely
identical) should catch the majority of unnecessary rebuilds.
On 25 July 2014 13:36 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K.
My apologies for the top-reply.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:36:31 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 23 July 2014 01:06:15 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
And just for fun, since
Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 21:34:10
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 22:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic deps
are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're using
El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 23:56 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
Useless triggers are the problem; why are the rev bumps needed, why are
dependencies forgotten, ...? Sounds like a developer work flow issue...
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499852
There are lots of cases of
El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 00:06 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
- The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
installed files (for example, -r1.1)
El mié, 23-07-2014 a las 14:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
- The other one would only regenerate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would be
asking for trouble, imo.
This entire sub thread reads like
Ian Stakenvicius:
Dynamic deps are the best solution outside of the (rather limited)
profiles/updates functions we have right now to allow us to make
whatever non-files-on-${ROOT} changes we need to make to the vdb. So
realistically what we should be doing is either trying to work out a
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps
support (or similar) should:
* write a PMS patch and get it merged
* join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of
yelling at them
That's
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread
- a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
Wrong. The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely
because we've accumulated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 10:44 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 22/07/14 06:44 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things would
be asking for
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:09:55 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Everyone else who thinks got an idea on how to fix dynamic deps
support (or similar) should:
* write a PMS patch and get it merged
* join the portage team and volunteer to implement it instead of
yelling
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be
fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an
idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they
understand why it's
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:58 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be
fixed. Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an
idea on how to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 17:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The reason everything is such a mess at the moment is precisely
because we've accumulated so much good enough and not thinking
your cunning plan all the way through that nothing is actually
correct any
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
- The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
installed files (for example, -r1.1)
But I am not sure if it could be viable from a technical point
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions: -
One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) - The
other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/07/14 01:36 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 25/07/14 01:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...) -
The other one would only
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:45:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Just a general comment not aimed at this particular part of the thread
- a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
Wrong.
On Wednesday 23 July 2014 01:06:15 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps
don't work at all on binpkgs since the
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:10:20 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22/07/14 04:05, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
And just for fun, since no one has mentioned it yet, dynamic deps
don't work at all on binpkgs since the Packages file contains the
deps (like vardb) and it
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Actually the quizzes are pretty much clear on that.
Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the
ebuild are changed.
Nothing about dependencies.
This has been policy for a LONG time,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revision bumping for dependency change that doesn't cause the
package's file content
to change doesn't make sense; triggers useless rebuilds for users.
A merged ebuild that misses a dependency needs an useless
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a single
fix. Everywhere.
Which bugs? Which fixes? Where? ... Did this thread spawn from nothing?
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:52:51 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is that
the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then have to hit
the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, with stable
requests
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:50:55 +0200
Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22/07/14 20:44, Kent Fredric wrote:
So we'll probably need a repoman check that is smart enough to know
X is modified and compare the DEPEND fields with the
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:37 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
But I guess they're indeed a larger issue than, for example, portage
forcing wrong branches of || dependencies or other dependency
calculation errors that result in people being unable to update their
systems. But I don't
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:05:54 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless
rebuilding.
The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the
most important
features the package manager has.
The
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:11:37 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
[citation needed].
In other words, please support such claims with evidence. Because
honestly I didn't see very much people complaining about unnecessary
rebuilds, except in this specific thread.
But I guess they're
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:34:10 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 22:56 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Yes, it does. I'm not sure if it leads anywhere, though. Dynamic
deps are a pipe dream. You can't implement them properly, so we're
using half-working
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:37:17 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
afaiu dynamic deps are broken and not defined in PMS
It goes a step further than that!
The PMS imposes certain limits on dependencies; it states that DEPEND
must be present before executing src_* phases, that RDEPEND must
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:41:39 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:25:45 +0200
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
One question: why for Removal of a USE flag along with the relevant
dependencies dynamic deps say revbump + unnecessary rebuild? What
would happen without the revbump?
Assuming dynamic dependencies don't exist,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update things
would be asking for trouble, imo.
This entire sub thread reads like a dynamic dependencies alternative in
disguise,
Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 23:06:07
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:05:54 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the
most important features the package manager has.
Uh, that's a bit of an odd claim, given that dynamic deps often doesn't
do what you're after
Samuli Suominen:
On 22/07/14 10:25, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense.
+1 I also think it's the best option.
Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless
On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 01:13 +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:34:10 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why not adapt the updates mechanism for modifying rdepends? Perhaps
something like
rdepends-add foo-bar/blah-3.14 wombat? ( =dev-libs/wombat-1.0 )
Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML...
On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:53:49 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Using ${PVR} to detect how portage should update
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:01:55 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The thing about -rX.Y is that it allows this new-dynamic-deps thing
to act like a regular rev bump to any PM that doesn't bother to
implement it (or dynamic deps for that matter). Instant
backwards-compatibility is a
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
- The other one would only regenerate VDB and wouldn't change the
installed files (for example, -r1.1)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
- One would rebuild all as usually (for example, -r1...)
- The other one
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible
solutions.
[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies
Thank you, this is very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 02:36, hasufell wrote:
William Hubbs:
My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is
that the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then
have to hit the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway,
Alexander Berntsen:
Julian,
would you like to share your experiences with Paludis? My guess is
that Paludis is more predictable in this respect. I.e., instead of
breaking stuff, I expect Paludis to simply give up.
Relying on dynamic deps as they are currently implemented simply causes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/07/14 05:06 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed
On 22 July 2014 19:25, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible
solutions.
[0]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 20:44, Kent Fredric wrote:
So we'll probably need a repoman check that is smart enough to know
X is modified and compare the DEPEND fields with the previous
incarnation prior to commit, and then at very least, warn people
doing
On 22/07/14 10:25, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
2. Remove dynamic-deps. This is what I think currently makes sense.
+1 I also think it's the best option.
Not before someone has implemented an alternative way to avoid useless
rebuilding.
The
Dnia 2014-07-22, o godz. 09:25:45
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 7/21/14, 11:52 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
Michał has documented the shortcomings of dynamic deps in our wiki[0].
(Thank you!) This documentation also includes two of our possible
solutions.
[0]
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:42:30AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 02:36, hasufell wrote:
William Hubbs:
My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is
that the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so
Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 22:42:23
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
So, -1, useless rebuilds is one of the biggest problems lately,
[citation needed].
In other words, please support such claims with evidence. Because
honestly I didn't see very much people complaining about
On 21/07/14 22:37, hasufell wrote:
afaiu dynamic deps are broken and not defined in PMS
still... people seem to fix deps without revbumping, causing users who
either don't use dynamic deps (it's optional for portage through
--dynamic-deps=y, although it's on by default) or who use a
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like EAPI4-5
EAPI changing to 5 should always get a revbump, since it causes
confusion if anyone has a USE dependency upon your package.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Am Montag, 21. Juli 2014, 21:37:17 schrieb hasufell:
afaiu dynamic deps are broken and not defined in PMS
still... people seem to fix deps without revbumping, causing users who
either don't use dynamic deps (it's optional for portage through
--dynamic-deps=y, although it's on by default) or
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the
ebuild are changed.
Nothing about dependencies.
This has been policy for a LONG time, and we're not going to change
it overnight just because
On 21/07/14 22:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like EAPI4-5
EAPI changing to 5 should always get a revbump, since it causes
confusion if anyone has a USE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/07/14 04:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 21/07/14 22:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300 Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like
EAPI4-5
EAPI
On 21/07/14 23:13, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 21/07/14 04:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 21/07/14 22:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300 Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like
EAPI4-5
EAPI
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:22 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21/07/14 22:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like
EAPI4-5
EAPI changing to 5
Samuli Suominen:
So, -1, useless rebuilds is one of the biggest problems lately
I am not sure if that is a joke.
We have:
* a broken PM which does incomplete dep calculation, gives wrong
suggestions to the user, has totally useless error/debug output,
randomly fails to remove files, allows to
-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,
Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 20:28:24
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
* a broken PM which does incomplete dep calculation, gives wrong
suggestions to the user, has totally useless error/debug output,
randomly fails to remove files, allows to break your system in numerous
ways and
Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 21:53:04
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Am Montag, 21. Juli 2014, 21:37:17 schrieb hasufell:
afaiu dynamic deps are broken and not defined in PMS
still... people seem to fix deps without revbumping, causing users who
either don't use dynamic
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:28:24 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
We have:
* a broken PM which does incomplete dep calculation, gives wrong
suggestions to the user, has totally useless error/debug output,
randomly fails to remove files, allows to break your system in
numerous ways and
El lun, 21-07-2014 a las 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:53:04 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by the
ebuild are changed.
Nothing about dependencies.
This has been policy for a
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a single
fix. Everywhere.
Dynamic dependencies is not fixable. It's an irredeemably broken
concept.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
