Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
On 22.5.2012 8.53, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>> Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing.
>> First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then
>> remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out
>> of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to
>> justify the significant breakage of portage tree.
>
> First of all, to quote devmanual:
>
> | Before updating eutils or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to
> | email the gentoo-dev list. It may be that your proposed change is
> | broken in a way you had not anticipated> [...]. If you don't email
> | gentoo-dev first, and end up breaking something, expect to be in a
> | lot of trouble.
>
> Not that this disrespect for this rule is something new...
>
Even more important is the next chapter:
"When removing a function or changing the API of an eclass, make sure
that it doesn't break any ebuilds in the tree, and post a notice to
gentoo-dev at least 30 days in advance, preferably with a patch included."
This qualifies as changing the API of an eclass. This chapter comes from
a council decision:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt
Regards,
Petteri
|
|
