Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 147975 - revdep-rebuild should rebuild only part of packages
Summary: revdep-rebuild should rebuild only part of packages
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Enhancement/Feature Requests (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal
Assignee: Portage team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-09-17 12:28 UTC by falcon
Modified: 2006-09-17 13:42 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description falcon 2006-09-17 12:28:02 UTC
I think revdep-rebuild could be easily streamlined to run a lot faster if there was a way to rebuild only the broken libraries, rather than recompiling the entire package they came from.  This is particularly applicable in the large KDE packages, and also in things like qt.  For instance, couldn't only those executables in qt which use mysql libraries which no longer exist, instead of recompiling the rest of it as well?
Comment 1 Andrew Gaffney (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-17 12:32:58 UTC
"easily"? Do you have patches? There is no easy way to do this. This would involve revdep-rebuild/portage having extensive knowledge of the build system of every package.
Comment 2 falcon 2006-09-17 12:49:14 UTC
Very well, strike easily.  This information, in that case, would be fairly wasteful for small packages... but couldn't it be done for a few parts of the larger ones?
Comment 3 Andrew Gaffney (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-17 13:02:22 UTC
And how do you propose to record this information? And are you volunteering to write the code (there would be a lot of it) that would be required to be added to portage to make something like this work? :P
Comment 4 Alec Warner (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2006-09-17 13:42:52 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Very well, strike easily.  This information, in that case, would be fairly
> wasteful for small packages... but couldn't it be done for a few parts of the
> larger ones?
> 

This is not feasable (in any system).  It would require metadata changes on over 12000 ebuilds; some build systems wouldn't even support it (requiring you to rebuild the entire thing just to get to fooLib); portage doesn't support it.