Am Montag, 25. September 2017, 02:33:13 CEST schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:51 PM, John Blinka wrote:
> >> Is this an officially approved technique?? it is DIRTY.
> >
> > I imagine that it is sanctioned, otherwise why would there be a
> > --changed-deps flag to emerge? Does s
On Monday, 25 September 2017 4:51:22 AM AEST John Blinka wrote:
> > Is this an officially approved technique?? it is DIRTY.
>
> I imagine that it is sanctioned, otherwise why would there be a
> --changed-deps flag to emerge? Does seem dirty. Glad you asked the
> question. Would love to learn w
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:51 PM, John Blinka wrote:
>
>> Is this an officially approved technique?? it is DIRTY.
>
> I imagine that it is sanctioned, otherwise why would there be a
> --changed-deps flag to emerge? Does seem dirty. Glad you asked the
> question. Would love to learn why this is
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:37:53 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Is this an officially approved technique?? it is DIRTY.
If the change doesn't affect the installed code, it is encouraged to
avoid unnecessary rebuilding.
For example, a new version of LibreOffice or Chromium depends on libfoo,
but the
>
>
> Is this an officially approved technique?? it is DIRTY.
I imagine that it is sanctioned, otherwise why would there be a
--changed-deps flag to emerge? Does seem dirty. Glad you asked the
question. Would love to learn why this is allowed. In my experience, it
happens quite often.
John
I think this is the first time a package tried to play this trick on me:
--- /var/db/pkg/dev-libs/qcustomplot-1.3.2/qcustomplot-1.3.2.ebuild
2017-05-21 13:38:15.482740587 -0700
+++ /usr/portage/dev-libs/qcustomplot/qcustomplot-1.3.2.ebuild 2017-09-22
19:27:30.0 -0700
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
6 matches
Mail list logo