On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 September 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700
>>
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
>> > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html
>>
>> By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase
>> order to be part of EAPI 2?
>>
>> Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to the way it
>> used to be for all EAPIs. The change breaks lots of existing ebuilds
>> (you claim you've probably fixed everything in ::gentoo, but you
>> don't know that and you've definitely not fixed overlays), including
>> ebuilds using a common documented technique recommended by the
>> devmanual.
>>
>> If you want the new pkg_* ordering to go through at all, it really
>> needs a lengthy discussion on its own and it mustn't apply to any
>> action that involves any existing EAPI.
>>
>> I'd like the Council to say that for anything involving EAPIs 0, 1 or
>> 2 we stick to the pkg_* phase ordering we've used years.
>
> What is the change of order you witnessed in table 6.11 of the draft?
> Comparing that to the PMS on [3], the order looks identical to me
> (except for the two new phases). Am I missing something?
>
>
> Robert
>
> [3] http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms.pdf Section 10.2
>

Previously, the order was different for upgrading/downgrading
packages. You can see a summary of the problem in bug #235020 [1]. I
sent a note to @-dev [2] with a list of all packages *in the tree*
which were affected by the most common problem of the order change
(using has_version in pkg_postinst), all of them were quickly fixed by
Zac. But there may be more packages affected not included there.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226505
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27feec8fc563e406b174386d24c39fdc.xml

Regards,
--
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: cooldwind@...