On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:38:43 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's what I've been trying to point out, people are seriously
suggesting disabling dynamic deps for race conditions
It's like fixing one audio driver in the kernel by deleting whole
ALSA block
It is more like
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 05:30:26 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/27/2014 05:21 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:12:07 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/26/2014 07:59 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:14:41 +1000
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:25:23 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
What a great way to kill the distro.
I can already heat my house with the number of unnecessary rebuilds
Do you upgrade
Samuli Suominen wrote:
let users do the rebuild (which is the obvious answer
to the output you posted)
Reality check time, Samuli.
Unless emerge says Your dependencies are b0rk, please rebuild $P to fix it.
that answer is nowhere near obvious.
Watch out with the tunnel vision.
//Peter
On 7/30/14, 7:36 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
If it's 2-3 packages out of ~300, I'd rather pick them out than
revision bump all ~300 for the 2-3. Or not pick them out at all
and let users do the rebuild (which is the obvious answer
to the output you posted)
Peter Stuge pointed it out already,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 7/30/14, 7:36 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
If it's 2-3 packages out of ~300, I'd rather pick them out than
revision bump all ~300 for the 2-3. Or not pick them out at all
and let users do the rebuild (which is the
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:18:22 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sure, but this seems more like a portage bug (or at least a portage
output bug) rather than a fundamental issue.
After all, there was no true block - just a need for a rebuild.
It's often not possible to produce a decent
On 30/07/14 14:18, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 7/30/14, 7:36 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
If it's 2-3 packages out of ~300, I'd rather pick them out than
revision bump all ~300 for the 2-3. Or not pick them out at all
Martin Vaeth wrote:
The user's vardb could then automatically receive the last state of
the ebuild, before it was removed.
It doesn't help reliably, either, since the last state of the ebuild,
before it was removed, will be outdated at some point, too.
Sorry, I don't see how. Can
On 29 July 2014 19:33, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
I think the vdb can and should be updated according to portage changes.
Someone just needs to code it. ;)
And an appropriate method for doing this must be decided upon.
And that part entails 70% of the discussion dispute :)
--
Kent
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
This is really the crux of these sorts of issues. It doesn't matter
if dependencies are static or dynamic - if you hang onto orphans then
you're going to have cruft in your vdb which is going to lead to
В Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:42:24 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org пишет:
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently
On 30/07/14 07:45, Alexander Tsoy wrote:
В Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:42:24 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org пишет:
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps
On 27/07/14 16:47, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 14:42:24
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics
Martin Vaeth wrote:
The user has to put a corrected ebuild into his overlay and must
reemerge the package (currently, the latter could be skipped with
dynamic deps).
In fact, no matter whether you have static or dynamic deps, this is
the only way to cleanly avoid the problems if you want to
Martin Vaeth wrote:
The user's vardb could then automatically receive the last state of
the ebuild, before it was removed.
It doesn't help reliably, either, since the last state of the ebuild,
before it was removed, will be outdated at some point, too.
Sorry, I don't see how. Can you give
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/07/14 11:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the
place where you proved how dynamic dependencies still work in the
face of ebuild removals. Your solution to this problem will be of
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:30:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 26/07/14 11:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the
place where you proved how dynamic dependencies still work in the
face of ebuild removals. Your solution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 28/07/14 10:43 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:30:15 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 26/07/14 11:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the
place where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/07/14 08:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Kent Fredric
kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
In a no dynamic deps, period scenario, this just strikes me as
2 flavours of the same weirdness, -r2 and -r1.1 are just
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The primary underlying problem I see about this is that it doesn't
force devs to start doing something to the tree that will suddenly
help make all of the static-deps-only PMs (ie, those that aren't going
to implement
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
In both cases of 6., the user is not even aware that he uses
long obsolete packages unless portage prints a big fat warning
for orphaned packages (which currently is not the case.
Well, at least eix -t will be print a
On 27 July 2014 19:16, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Not at all, it is completely identical to a revision bump:
If you would use -r2 instead of -r1.1, you also would end up
in -r1 and -r2 being identical.
Actually, in both cases, you would *remove* -r1, since -r1 is incorrect
since it
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g.
when subslots are in use)
Just to make it clear: No, dynamic deps are
Samuli Suominen:
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g.
when subslots are in use)
Just to make it clear: No,
On 7/27/14, 1:42 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Only one person said he had to manually build 2 GNOME related packages,
simple-scan and something else
So, broken? Far from it. More like essential feature.
People have just listed some known races dynamic deps have, and I take
those races
Paweł Hajdan, Jr.:
On 7/27/14, 1:42 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Only one person said he had to manually build 2 GNOME related packages,
simple-scan and something else
So, broken? Far from it. More like essential feature.
People have just listed some known races dynamic deps have, and I take
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
In a no dynamic deps, period scenario, this just strikes me as 2 flavours
of the same weirdness, -r2 and -r1.1 are just equally weird choices to make
if the ebuild itself doesn't change at all.
You have a good point
On 27/07/14 14:50, hasufell wrote:
Samuli Suominen:
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g.
when subslots are
Samuli Suominen:
On 27/07/14 14:50, hasufell wrote:
Samuli Suominen:
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:31 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm eager to hear how you want to make subslots work with dynamic deps.
:= gets converted to :${SLOT}/${SUBSLOT} in vardb and this is used to
trigger the rebuilds.
How do you record the subslot a package was built against
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:42:24 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We just succesfully converted ~300 ebuilds in tree without revision
bumps from virtual/udev[gudev,introspection,static-libs]
to virtual/libudev and virtual/libgudev
Tested it on multiple boxes, went fine.
Testing
Dnia 2014-07-27, o godz. 14:42:24
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 26/07/14 15:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Uh huh, so you add an overlay, and suddenly the dependencies for a
random subset of your installed packages change in ways that don't in
any way reflect what you have installed. How is this the desired
behaviour?
There are several different cases of dependency data
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Doing this would require having portage cache a hash of whatever
ebuild it last parsed, and perhaps its eclasses as well if we permit
revbump-less eclass changes. Then it would have to check for when
these change, perhaps
On 28 July 2014 09:46, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then portage could look for any change in state and that would trigger
a build-less re-merge, which would update vdb with the new state
(including the new hash).
If we're scared about this being worse than what we have, I notice
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:32:20 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
User installs foo-1.1-r1
Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1
foo-1.1* is removed from the tree
User syncs
How is this different from your suggestion
(which you
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:41:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g.
when subslots are in use)
Just to make it clear: No, dynamic deps are not broken.
Yes they are.
What is
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:54:08 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org 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
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:00:31 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Both, dynamic and static deps are broken.
They are broken in different ways, but both are broken.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:16:13 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
But, OK, so I will use your strawman to prove
how static deps are broken:
This is not broken. This is exactly what is supposed to happen, and it
is exactly what *does* happen some of the time with dynamic
dependencies
El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 12:00 +, Martin Vaeth escribió:
[...]
Probably there are many more examples than 1.-4, but I hope
that the point becomes clear: Whenever packages split, merge,
or can substitute each other, dependency changes are necessary,
and rebuilds caused by these are
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:41:34 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
The idea is to act as usual, just to skip unnecessary phases...
So someone adds optional selinux support to a package, and then you end
up with selinux being on, despite not having it, and then another
package depends
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:09:44 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
PMS defines a static dependency model
No. PMS does not specify which dependency information has
to be taken.
Yes it does. Please read PMS, and do not guess as to what it says.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Dnia 2014-07-26, o godz. 14:02:29
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de napisał(a):
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
rdepends-add is easy to implement [...] Deletion is trickier [...]
The point is to *not* clean up these entries for months/years.
So, essentially, you want the
Dnia 2014-07-26, o godz. 14:09:44
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de napisał(a):
Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote:
1. Improve dynamic-deps. This is, as Michał pointed out earlier in
this thread a pipe dream.
Not necessarily. Just somebody with enough knowledge in
portage and
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:33:38 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
No. PMS does not specify which dependency information has
to be taken.
Yes it does. Please read PMS, and do not guess as to what it says.
Looking for
Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:33:38 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
No. PMS does not specify which dependency information has
to be taken.
Yes it does. Please read PMS, and do not guess as to what it says.
Martin Vaeth:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
But, OK, so I will use your strawman to prove
how static deps are broken:
This is not broken. This is exactly what is supposed to happen
It's not a bug it's a feature
Of course, one can always close the eyes when faced
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:46:42 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Yes, both concepts have problems.
The problems are of a different kind. Static dependencies don't do
something that you want them to do. Dynamic dependencies are outright
broken.
Since neither solution is perfect, why
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:57:20 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
This is a technical discussion
Exactly. So instead of writing such pointless personal attacks,
you should give technical arguments.
The technical reasons that dynamic dependencies can never work have
already been
Dnia 2014-07-26, o godz. 15:01:46
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de napisał(a):
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
The idea is to act as usual, just to skip unnecessary phases...
So someone adds optional selinux support to a package, and
Martin Vaeth:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dynamics deps are already broken, not consistently enabled (e.g.
when subslots are in use)
Just to make it clear: No, dynamic deps are not broken.
Yes
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:04:31 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
It seems that *you* should take some reading before you
continue with discussion.
I wrote PMS, the dev manual and a package manager... I understand the
issues involved. If you want to contribute, you should at least
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:11:36 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
The problems are of a different kind. Static dependencies don't do
something that you want them to do. Dynamic dependencies
Martin Vaeth:
Indeed, it just would just need a little programming.
would you like to implement it?
Dnia 2014-07-26, o godz. 15:27:51
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de napisał(a):
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
All people with enough knowledge already know that this is technically
impossible.
We already discussed in the bug how it *would* be possible,
just nobody implements it:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:27:51 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
All people with enough knowledge already know that this is
technically impossible.
We already discussed in the bug how it *would* be possible,
just nobody implements it:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:40:40 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the place
where you proved how dynamic dependencies still work in the face
of ebuild removals.
*Neither* dynamic deps nor static deps solve this problem
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:59:58 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
And what if the match for :=3D is
incompatible with new dependency atom? Like when you replace
'dev-foo/bar:=3D' with '=3Ddev-foo/bar-2:=3D' but bar-1 is
installed.
This is simple: The dependency is not
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:05:58 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Your solution fails spectacularly in the following ways:
* Ebuild removal
Already discussed as to fail with static deps, too.
Uh, static dependencies don't
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:05:58 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Your solution fails spectacularly in the following ways:
* Introduction
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:28:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sure, it might cause a few unnecessary ebuilds but whether your
package manager attempts to support dynamic deps or not you'll
certainly have an up-to-date dependency cache.
VDB is not a cache. This is important.
--
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:59:58 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
And what if the match for :=3D is
incompatible with new dependency atom? Like when you replace
'dev-foo/bar:=3D' with
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:36:45 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:59:58 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
And what if the match for :=3D is
incompatible
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:36:27 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
* Overlays
Not an issue: Exactly the information of that ebuild
which *would* be used if you reemerge contains
the relevant data.
The association between
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:12:07 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/26/2014 07:59 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:14:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/23/2014 09:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:21:00 +1000
On 27 July 2014 02:12, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
Do not forget modification of eclasses which then require mass bumps!
I'm curious what the -r1.1 technique would do here.
I mean, wouldn't that mean you have 2 ebuilds that are identical except for
the '.1' simply due to the eclass
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:14:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/23/2014 09:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:21:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
What a great way to kill the distro.
I can already heat my house with the
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:44:34 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
How long have dynamic-deps been around? Since EAPI-0? Because if
so, that interpretation must be incorrect, since EAPI-0 was defined
as portage behavior at the time, and AFAIK, no EAPI since then has
been approved
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:21:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
What a great way to kill the distro.
I can already heat my house with the number of unnecessary rebuilds
Do you upgrade @world every hour and thus have it cause excessive heat?
If I upgrade every X weeks they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 04:51 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag 22 Juli 2014, 22:40:03 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote:
PF has to be filled correctly, of course: The versions foo-1
and foo-1-r0 are identical according
On 07/23/2014 09:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:21:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
What a great way to kill the distro.
I can already heat my house with the number of unnecessary rebuilds
Do you upgrade @world every hour and thus have it cause
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Martin Vaeth mar...@mvath.de wrote:
...but by introducing all the additional complications Ian
has mentioned. More precisely: What happens if new dependencies
are introduced which are not satisfied?
One has to face it: Portage must not just silently update the
El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 07:39 +, Martin Vaeth escribió:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/22/2014 10:21 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 07/22/2014 07:52 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
To sum up: My vote is disable dynamic-deps. And I would be happy
to apply a patch that does this with the information I have
today.
What a
On 22/07/14 11:21, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 07/22/2014 07:52 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
To sum up: My vote is disable dynamic-deps. And I would be happy to
apply a patch that does this with the information I have today.
What a great way to kill the distro.
I can already heat my house
El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 10:32 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió:
[...]
I find it somewhat curious that the difference between ~arch and
stable hasn't been brought up in this discussion yet. IMHO a user on
~arch should expect a higher number of rebuilds, it _is_ after all
testing, whereby
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 09:39, Martin Vaeth wrote:
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
On July 22, 2014 11:25:05 AM CEST, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 10:32 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió:
[...]
I find it somewhat curious that the difference between ~arch and
stable hasn't been brought up in this discussion yet. IMHO a user on
~arch should
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:03:16 +0200
Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote:
As someone who regularly adds in dependencies without bumping (adding
USE=selinux dependencies to the proper SELinux policy) because that
would trigger lots of totally unnecessary rebuilds:
Er... You do realise that
On 22/07/14 20:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:03:16 +0200
Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote:
As someone who regularly adds in dependencies without bumping (adding
USE=selinux dependencies to the proper SELinux policy) because that
would trigger lots of totally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/07/14 20:40, Martin Vaeth wrote:
If there is interest, I can post my patches so far. Where?
If you think these patches are useful for Portage, please send them to
dev-port...@gentoo.org.
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
Am Dienstag 22 Juli 2014, 22:40:03 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote:
PF has to be filled correctly, of course:
The versions foo-1 and foo-1-r0 are identical according to PMS
and should thus lead to the same $PF.
This is not so. These versions are equal in
84 matches
Mail list logo
