On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:28:06 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 06/08/13 04:22 PM, Alexis Ballier 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. > > > > Terminology issue. Useless rebuilds are not regressions. they might > be undesirable, they might be bugs, but they are not something that > was happening before, and then was fixed, and now is happening again. Sorry, I failed to parse. They are something that was not happening before and now is happening. > The only thing "regression" can be applied to in this discussion is if > a consumer is NOT using a := slot-operator on a dep like poppler, and > the poppler libs that consumer uses are updated and breakage occurrs > - -- ie, the exact same case that was happening all the time prior to > EAPI5 adoption. IE, exactly what you are proposing to do in order to > reduce the extra rebuilds. This is not a regression from my definition: Software regression, the appearance of a bug which was absent in a previous revision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression
