Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

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] Thank you, this is

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

Pacho Ramos 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) I made the same suggestion already on the corre

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

El mar, 22-07-2014 a las 07:39 +, Martin Vaeth escribió: > Pacho Ramos 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 fi

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

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 with the number of unnecessary rebuilds - I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

-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. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

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, where

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-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 anyw

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/07/14 09:39, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Pacho Ramos 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 cha

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

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 ca

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-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" >> wrote: >>> Revision must be bumped when the on-disk files installed by >>> the e

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

On July 22, 2014 11:25:05 AM CEST, Pacho Ramos 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 expect a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:03:16 +0200 Sven Vermeulen 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 doing that with d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

On 22/07/14 20:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:03:16 +0200 > Sven Vermeulen 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 rebui

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

On 22 July 2014 19:25, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." 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]

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > The main issue that I see is > - -how- VDB should be adjusted based on what changes are made to the > ebuilds. For instance, if minimum versions of deps are adjusted > in-place, should vdb be updated to match? what happens if the minimum > version of the currently-ins

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

-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 https://secure.plai

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

-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 > doi

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> The main issue that I see is >> - -how- VDB should be adjusted based on what changes are made to the >> ebuilds. For instance, if minimum versions of deps are adjusted >> in-place, should vdb be updated to match? wh

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Other problems appear, though. Documentation is installed in a ${PF} > subdir, so install locations actually do change when updating the > minor revision. Yes, the minor revisions should not be exported into the variables of ebuild.sh. I had forgotten this. > Also some

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-22, o godz. 09:25:45 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" 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]

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Other problems appear, though. Documentation is installed in a >> ${PF} subdir, so install locations actually do change when updating >> the minor revision. > Yes, the minor revisions should not be exported into the variab

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

Ulrich Mueller wrote: > The new ebuild is cat/foo-1-r0.1 then, and PF changes even > if the minor revision is ignored (namely, from foo-1 to foo-1-r0). 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. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Using LINGUAS

Hello, LINGUAS is a concept in gettext tooling. I do not understand why we overload it in package management in the first place. It is an environment variable that we set up in make.conf, because that's an easy way to get it into the build environment to have the standard way of limiting translati

[gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

> 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 comparision, so they cannot be in the tree at the same ti

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: don't rely on dynamic deps

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] don't rely on dynamic deps

Dnia 2014-07-21, o godz. 22:42:23 Samuli Suominen 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 unnecessary rebuilds, exc