| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:47:05 +1100 |
| 3 |
"Todd Wright" <wylie@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I have to second this. I recently submitted an ebuild |
| 7 |
> (app-emulation/hercules-2.17.1.ebuild) and the developer apparently |
| 8 |
> decided to copy the 2.15 ebuild to 2.17.1 rather than use the attached |
| 9 |
> 2.17.1 ebuild provided. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Granted there were only minor changes in the new ebuild, but another |
| 12 |
> more complex package may have seen more complex changes in the ebuild |
| 13 |
> between the different versions, and added functionality is missing. H |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Now here is an issue and a pet peeve I have with ebuild submitters, |
| 17 |
especially in the desktop set of applications. They re-submit an ebuild |
| 18 |
that is created by doing cp oldbuild->newbuild. Why? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Doing that has made a lot of us cautious since the usersubmitted builds |
| 21 |
are generally an annoyance in such cases, fex. When somone doesn't state |
| 22 |
teh changes in the ebuild between the old and the new, I'm forced to |
| 23 |
proofread the new builds completely as to avoid getting messed over. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, did you actually state what differed your build from the last? |
| 26 |
builds without a Changes entry will get a far rougher treatment than |
| 27 |
others. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
(Why do users insist on not submiting the ChangeLog entry?) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
//Spider |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
begin .signature |
| 35 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 36 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 37 |
end |
Archives