On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:55:29 +0200
> "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o> wrote:
> > As discussed in bug #222721, portage has changed the execution order
> > of phases. It seems the change was introduced in portage-2.1.5 and it
> > makes that, when upgrading a package, pkg_postinst is run after the
> > old version has been removed. This breaks packages which use
> > has_version in pkg_postinst to detect upgrades/downgrades. It can also
> > break packages in more subtle ways.
> 
> Given that the number of affected ebuilds is so high, I'd say Portage
> should have to revert the changes...

Of course, you would.  What else would we expect from you?

> This is an EAPI scope change, if anything. Although even then the
> implications are a bit messy since you're talking the interaction of
> two different EAPIs.

It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change.  That's not
very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time since PMS
was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0 or EAPI=1 (or
PMS, for that matter).  What we have gotten is a half-assed "you can use
EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated features" from the Council,
but that's nothing like acceptance of a spec.  Perhaps if you spent a
little more time doing something more constructive than being an asshat
on the lists, PMS would have been approved long ago.  Of course, that
doesn't mesh well with your apparent need to be a complete dick to
people, so continue on with the status quo.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer