| 1 |
On 08/12/2017 06:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> My gut feeling is that the change you want is probably a good thing, |
| 4 |
> but it will never happen if you can't provide a single example of |
| 5 |
> something bad happening due to the lack of a revbump. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
There's an unfixed security vulnerability with USE=foo, so we drop the |
| 8 |
flag temporarily. Users who had USE=foo enabled will keep the vulnerable |
| 9 |
code installed until they update with --changed-use or --newuse. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Even with the devmanual improvements, the advice we give is conflicting: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* If you fix an important runtime issue, do a revbump. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
* If you drop a USE flag, don't do a revbump. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What if you fix a runtime issue by dropping a flag? It's more confusing |
| 18 |
than it has to be: the USE flag exception interacts weirdly with all the |
| 19 |
other rules. |
Archives