| 1 |
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:16:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 05/21/2012 06:46 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On May 20, autools.eclass was changed to no longer inherit eutils, |
| 6 |
> > see |
| 7 |
> > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.133&r2=1.134 |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> Relying on autotools.eclass for your eutils needs was always a |
| 12 |
> > terrible idea, but a few ebuilds did it anyway. Those ebuilds are |
| 13 |
> > now *broken* since they can no longer use epatch. See bug #416847 |
| 14 |
> > for an example. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Check your ebuilds to make sure you inherit eutils in anything |
| 17 |
> > that uses epatch! |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > -Alexandre Rostovtsev. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing. |
| 23 |
> First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then |
| 24 |
> remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out |
| 25 |
> of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to |
| 26 |
> justify the significant breakage of portage tree. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
First of all, to quote devmanual: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
| Before updating eutils or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to |
| 31 |
| email the gentoo-dev list. It may be that your proposed change is |
| 32 |
| broken in a way you had not anticipated> [...]. If you don't email |
| 33 |
| gentoo-dev first, and end up breaking something, expect to be in a |
| 34 |
| lot of trouble. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Not that this disrespect for this rule is something new... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives