On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200 > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than > > > > necessary. > > > > > > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem. > > > > This would be suicide for Gentoo as a distro. Organizations that have > > a dedicated build server and a standardized /etc/portage config tree > > pushed to all user machines could rebuild half of @world once a week. > > Individual users running Gentoo on a single workstation or server > > can't and won't. > > Then either Gentoo should ship binary packages, or the user should find > another distribution. > > Gentoo *already* does a full rebuild for packages whose bumps or > revbumps just result in one text file changing. So long as there isn't > a mechanism and full ebuild support in place to prevent this, it's a > silly argument.
You don't see the difference between unnecessarily rebuilding one package (because a text file changed) and unnecessarily rebuilding a hundred packages (because libfoo added a new function)? Especially since maintainers of packages with long compile times understandably tend to be a bit conservative with their revision bumps, but have no control over when their package's dependencies get subslotbumped.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
