1 |
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:11 +0200 |
2 |
cilly <cilly@××××××××××.nu> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Hi all, |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I think it is worth to discuss about `Do not modify ebuilds which |
7 |
> are already in the tree... even if masked.` |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Sometimes ebuilds which are already in the portage tree are modified |
10 |
> without changing the |
11 |
> version-number, i.e. ebuild-r1 is in the portage tree and the ebuild- |
12 |
> r1 gets changed, |
13 |
> i.e. useflag or other issues without changing the version number to |
14 |
> ebuild-r2. This causes |
15 |
> confusion i.e. in bug-reports. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> My opinion is not to change any ebuild which is in the portage tree, |
18 |
> even if the ebuild is masked. |
19 |
> I think the better way is to add an ebuild with an updated version |
20 |
> number, even if the ebuild is still |
21 |
> masked. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I also recommend to manage hard-masked packages the same way, it |
24 |
> prevents confusion in |
25 |
> bug-reports. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> What do you think? |
28 |
|
29 |
Not realistic. Think about it: |
30 |
- upstream location for a package changes, so old SRC_URI stops |
31 |
working. If we don't update the existing ebuild people can't use it |
32 |
anymore, if we bump it to a new revision existing users "have to" |
33 |
perform a pointless update. |
34 |
- a mistake in the ebuild prevents installation for 10% of the users, |
35 |
but doesn't affect runtime behavior. SHould we bump it just for that |
36 |
and "force" the other 90% of the users to perform a pointless update? |
37 |
- also due to eclasses this is practically impossible, if an eclass is |
38 |
changed all ebuilds inheriting it are implicitly changed as well, |
39 |
you can't really restrict that to revbumps. |
40 |
|
41 |
Marius |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
45 |
|
46 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
47 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |