On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:07:28 -0800 Grant <emailgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So they are not really the same thing at all.I'm not saying they're > > the same, I'm saying it looks like @preserved-rebuild does a subset > > of the things revdep-rebuild does. Why run @preserved-rebuild > > followed by revdep-rebuild if the end result is the same as running > > revdep-rebuild? I'm sure I'm missing something here but I don't > > know what it is. OK, I see what you mean. I'm a pessimistic sysadmin who's written a lot of code. I know bug factories when I see one :-) @preserved-rebuild is an excellent idea, but I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that it is bug-free enough yet to the point where I can drop revdep-rebuild entirely. So I still want the safety net of running revdep-rebuild occasionally just in case there's something @preserved-rebuild missed. It's also a good way to find bugs in @preserved-rebuild -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
