On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:12:06 -0400 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:41:59 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 13:05:07 -0400 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > 'occasional unnecessary rebuild' is a big deal since subslots > > > introduce this regression... > > > > Er, no. Subslots just simplify the way accurate slot dependencies > > are expressed. That's all they are: an alternative to having a > > larger number of (full) slots plus blockers between some of those > > slots. > > hmmm... no ?
Er, yes. You may be confusing subslots and :=/:* dependencies, which are a different feature. > > > > There's an easy fix for that: split the package up. > > > > > > Great, please start submitting patches at our thousands of > > > upstreams so that their packages can be split properly. > > > > You don't need to patch anything... You just make poppler-stable > > and poppler-dodgy ebuilds. > > And you need to patch it to do it properly. You just make the ebuilds install different bits. In effect you emulate a simple subset of how parts would do it. > Or you can do parts/subpackages or subslot dictionaries to express > that. Realistically, parts will never get implemented in Portage. Subslot dictionaries might be, if anyone ever figures out what they're supposed to be, but they're a heavy price for package developers to pay. The question under discussion is whether it's a price worth paying to avoid an occasional unnecessary rebuild. Since users do far more unnecessary rebuilds for other reasons anyway, and reducing CPU usage has never been a goal for Gentoo, I'm not convinced it's worth caring about. > > > Exercise: Try to update a FreeBSD 6 system (libc.so.6) to a > > > FreeBSD 7 system (libc.so.7) without some kind of preserve-libs > > > mechanism. Been there, done that. The flaws of preserve-libs show > > > up but it maintains a half working system all the way long that > > > allows you to finish the update. > > > > There is no "half working". Something is either correct or it isn't. > > Sometimes there is no 'correct'. You are probably using every day > programs that use heuristics/approximations to solve NP-hard or > undecidable problems in a 'correct enough' way. Dependency resolution is at least NP hard, and we're still solving it exactly. But you're confusing approximations and feasibility here. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
