Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:15:00
Message-Id: 1339060422.3014.1.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue by Brian Harring
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 14:59 -0700, Brian Harring escribió:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > > > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > > > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages > > > with tests)? > > > > I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the > > pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase suggested here: > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c20 > > Same thing I said in '07; I don't have a problem w/ hooks for ebuilds > to specify additional QA checks, but this *cannot* be the user's end > solution- it needs to be purely for making it easier for devs to spot > their screwups. In other words, revdep-rebuild shouldn't be involved; > this should spot/complain that zlib (for example) changed abi w/out a > matching metadata setting/whatever, rather than having checks done in > the consumers. > > Using this for anything other than a QA check of the originating > package, basically has an end result of us going towards a > non-deterministic resolution model- which is a clusterfuck, frankly. > > ~harring > >
Personally, my intention was exactly that: use that check to allow devs to detect the problem and commit a proper ebuild (this test could even be fatal to really enforce developers to not miss it)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature