1 |
В Сбт, 14/08/2010 в 20:06 +0300, Markos Chandras пишет: |
2 |
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
3 |
> > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect |
4 |
> > > the LDFLAGS. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which |
7 |
> > changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump. |
8 |
> List? Really? I use devmanual for ebuild development not list archives. |
9 |
|
10 |
Heh, devmanual is second source of information and first is good old |
11 |
official documentation. Take a look at our "Ebuild policy": |
12 |
|
13 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1 |
14 |
|
15 |
Now let me read it: |
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
"Versioning and revision bumps" |
19 |
|
20 |
"Package revision numbers should be incremented by Gentoo Linux |
21 |
developers when the ebuild has changed to the point where users would |
22 |
want to upgrade." |
23 |
|
24 |
This general and a unclear sentence. Below it is explained quite well: |
25 |
|
26 |
"Typically, this is the case when fixes are made to an ebuild that |
27 |
affect the resultant installed files, but the ebuild uses the same |
28 |
source tarball as the previous release." |
29 |
|
30 |
For this this clear: if installed files changed do bump revision. And to |
31 |
make this more clear later text discusses cases when no revbump |
32 |
required: |
33 |
|
34 |
"If you make an internal, stylistic change to the ebuild that does not |
35 |
change any of the installed files, then there is no need to bump the |
36 |
revision number. Likewise, if you fix a compilation problem in the |
37 |
ebuild that was affecting some users, there is no need to bump the |
38 |
revision number, since those for whom it worked perfectly would see no |
39 |
benefit in installing a new revision, and those who experienced the |
40 |
problem do not have the package installed (since compilation failed) and |
41 |
thus have no need for the new revision number to force an upgrade." |
42 |
|
43 |
Clear, right? And some exceptions, people mentioned in this tread: |
44 |
|
45 |
"A revision bump is also not necessary if a minority of users will be |
46 |
affected and the package has a nontrivial average compilation time; use |
47 |
your best judgement in these circumstances." |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
Yes, we need to merge two piecies of information. But at the moment |
51 |
we'll have to use both and in case devmanual has something unclear try |
52 |
to look at other documentation. So, please, do revbumps for all changes |
53 |
that affect installed files. ~arch is _supposed_ to be fast moving |
54 |
target and for ~arch it's ok to rebuild package just for small fix. In |
55 |
case users want something more stable that should use stable... |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Peter. |