On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:22:48 -0400 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:44:57 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:31:14 -0400 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Well, ok, but this doesn't relate to what I was writing. Subslot, > > > or slot emulators or whatever, in their current usage with := > > > dependencies, are not fine grained enough for some use cases. > > > Those cause regressions if used improperly. > > > > There is no regression. Previously, packages sometimes broke when > > doing an upgrade. Now, packages do not break when doing an upgrade. > > The regression is the useless rebuild. Without preserve-libs, packages > break even more: cf the libc example.
You can't claim a broken solution to be better than a working solution. > > > > You just make the ebuilds install different bits. In effect you > > > > emulate a simple subset of how parts would do it. > > > > > > Which needs patching to be done properly... unless you are > > > suggesting to build it twice and throw away whats not needed just > > > to workaround subslots limitations. > > > > It's up to the relevant developers to decide how much work they're > > willing to put in to save some users a bit of CPU time. > > It's up to those that want to force this on developers to do the > relevant work so that it can be done properly. No-one is forcing it on developers. Developers are free to just use lots of subslots and pass the cost on to users if they like. It's not a big deal, since Gentoo involves lots of compiling things anyway. > > > Your argumentation is basically 'Other parts are doing it wrong so > > > it's ok to add some more to it'... We're back a dozen emails back, > > > aren't we? > > > > It's not adding more to it. It's avoiding eliminating a tiny portion > > of it. Even if you subscribe to the notion that unnecessary rebuilds > > are a relevant problem, there's no point in caring about the > > occasional unnecessary rebuild due to overly strict dependencies > > when most unnecessary rebuilds are caused by something else > > entirely. > > And here we go again... You've still not justified spending a massive amount of effort on addressing a tiny fraction of unnecessary recompiles. What makes this supposed problem in any way relevant? Why should we spend time reducing 1% of the cost by 1%? > > > It was meant as an example and has nothing to do with dependency > > > resolution. The above exercise is something extreme but that we > > > have to solve; preserve-libs has proven to be correct enough. You > > > have yet to show a correct, in your sense, solution. > > > > The correct solution is heavy slotting. And I'd hardly consider > > "intermittently introduces invisible security holes and causes > > unbootable systems" to be "correct enough"... > > There is no difference between heavy slotting and preserve-libs in > this case. Yes there is: heavy slotting is only dependent upon a careful developer, whereas preserve-libs relies upon voodoo that can go horribly wrong. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
