| 1 |
On 22.5.2012 8.53, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>> |
| 4 |
>> Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing. |
| 5 |
>> First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then |
| 6 |
>> remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out |
| 7 |
>> of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to |
| 8 |
>> justify the significant breakage of portage tree. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> First of all, to quote devmanual: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> | Before updating eutils or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to |
| 13 |
> | email the gentoo-dev list. It may be that your proposed change is |
| 14 |
> | broken in a way you had not anticipated> [...]. If you don't email |
| 15 |
> | gentoo-dev first, and end up breaking something, expect to be in a |
| 16 |
> | lot of trouble. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Not that this disrespect for this rule is something new... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Even more important is the next chapter: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
"When removing a function or changing the API of an eclass, make sure |
| 24 |
that it doesn't break any ebuilds in the tree, and post a notice to |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev at least 30 days in advance, preferably with a patch included." |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This qualifies as changing the API of an eclass. This chapter comes from |
| 28 |
a council decision: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Petteri |
Archives