| 1 |
On 6/3/11 4:09 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> You could have a 'versioned' ebuild linked to the actual SRC_URI, |
| 4 |
>> and bump it whenever you notice the upstream tarball changes. This |
| 5 |
>> would allow users to have the package upgraded automatically. |
| 6 |
> I don't think this will help users much. It will just make the package |
| 7 |
> uninstallable between the time the upstream tarball changes and the |
| 8 |
> package is bumped. |
| 9 |
> A live ebuild is at least honestly telling users what to expect. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Agreed. The 'version' ebuild linked to the tarball changing in place is |
| 12 |
actually the current state of non-live ebuilds (by the way, do people |
| 13 |
responding in this thread actually read ebuilds in question?). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This thread is about removing those 'versioned' ebuilds, so your |
| 16 |
response could be interpret as "don't remove them". But then they're |
| 17 |
broken, and if I bump them today a few weeks/months from now they'll be |
| 18 |
broken again. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The live ebuild should be more "resilient". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
>> I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash |
| 23 |
>> packages. |
| 24 |
> It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Interesting, I was maintaining chromium-bin and I masked it. Doesn't |
| 27 |
seem similar to me (did you mean google-chrome-bin or similar hacks?). |
Archives