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 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. > > 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... > > 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.
