El sáb, 14-06-2014 a las 16:41 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Hi,
Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with previous
one. It was because it introduced new APIs which applications could
make use of. Since I
El sáb, 14-06-2014 a las 12:50 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
[...]
A solution to unnecessary rebuilds in these situations, as well as for
case (1), might be in the form of subslots as a key:value list, with
different users subscribing to be rebuilt for specific keys.
I guess
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El sáb, 14-06-2014 a las 12:50 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
[...]
A solution to unnecessary rebuilds in these situations, as well as for
case (1), might be in the form of subslots as a key:value list, with
different
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with previous
one. It was because it introduced new APIs which applications could
make use of.
Hi,
Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with previous
one. It was because it introduced new APIs which applications could
make use of. Since I believe this is a wider issue, I would like to
know the opinion of
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
Why not?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
Why
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
This would be suicide for Gentoo as a
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
necessary.
14 июня 2014 г. 19:45 пользователь Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com написал:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/06/14 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi,
Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with
previous one. It was because it introduced new APIs which
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However,
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:20 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force
Ian Stakenvicius:
I vote that as primary policy/general practice, it only be bumped for
(2) -- the primary purpose of subslot rebuilds is to allow portage to
figure out the deptree order when a dependency upgrade is going to
break a package that may or may not be emerged later. break is
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:20 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 17:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:41 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Considering the libtool versioning, there are two kinds of library
bumps relevant to us:
1) when ABI is altered in backwards-compatible way (so old stuff is not
touched),
2) when ABI is altered in backwards-incompatible way.
The
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 12:50 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
Example: glib and gobject-introspection.
s/gobject-introspection/dbus-glib/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev
On Saturday 14 June 2014 11:50:29 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
This shouldn't be
23 matches
Mail list logo
