[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/mlt: ChangeLog mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild

[Ryan Hill]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:35:56 +0200
Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > > the LDFLAGS.
> >
> > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
> > changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
>
> If that's true, that doesn't make sense. Take one extreme case: let's
> say libgcj, part of gcc, has a problem with LDFLAGS, and you fixed it.
> But the majority of people using gcc don't even turn on java support,
> those that do have a working libgcj already, and gcc can easily take
> hours to build. Should you revbump?
>
> There are always exceptions. Maybe you don't consider LDFLAGS support
> in general one of those exceptions, but clearly some others do. You
> can't just tell them "there are no exceptions" when there are, you need
> to explain why this isn't a valid reason to make an exception.
> My impression, too, is that few people care enough about LDFLAGS support
> to want to rebuild packages for it, so I would not have bumped either,
> but I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong.

I think it's up to the discretion of the maintainer in this case.  Of course,
when you're not the maintainer, err on the side of caution.

(i wouldn't do a revbump for LDFLAGS on my own packages.  CFLAGS, yes.)


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662