1 |
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:07:11PM +0200, cilly wrote: |
2 |
> Hi all, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I think it is worth to discuss about `Do not modify ebuilds which are |
5 |
> already in the tree... even if masked.` |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sometimes ebuilds which are already in the portage tree are modified |
8 |
> without changing the version-number, i.e. ebuild-r1 is in the portage |
9 |
> tree and the ebuild-r1 gets changed, i.e. useflag or other issues |
10 |
> without changing the version number to ebuild-r2. This causes |
11 |
> confusion i.e. in bug-reports. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> My opinion is not to change any ebuild which is in the portage tree, |
14 |
> even if the ebuild is masked. I think the better way is to add an |
15 |
> ebuild with an updated version number, even if the ebuild is still |
16 |
> masked. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I also recommend to manage hard-masked packages the same way, it |
19 |
> prevents confusion in bug-reports. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> What do you think? |
22 |
|
23 |
I think this is also a bad idea. I seem to recall that this is |
24 |
documented somewhere in the Developer Handbook... |
25 |
|
26 |
- ferdy |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Fernando J. Pereda GarcimartÃn |
30 |
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 |