1 |
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:17:26 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 13:23:15 |
5 |
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> napisał(a): |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700 |
8 |
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > > On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote: |
11 |
> > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
12 |
> > > >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situation gracefully by using |
13 |
> > > >> the dependencies from the portage tree instead of vdb. However, in the |
14 |
> > > >> case of a slot-operator dep, it always uses vdb. |
15 |
> > > >> |
16 |
> > > >> See bug 477544. |
17 |
> > > >> |
18 |
> > > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477544 |
19 |
> > > > |
20 |
> > > > Aha, thanks for the bug, missed it. Well, my recommendation is still |
21 |
> > > > valid until portage gets fixed. Glad to know someone's looking into |
22 |
> > > > it though. |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > Can we get that recommendation to the devmanual possibly? |
25 |
> > > |
26 |
> > > I'm still a little bit confused what exactly would warrant such a |
27 |
> > > revision bump, and why. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > Revision bumps are necessary when there are changes made to the files that |
30 |
> > are installed by a package. That's it. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > When bumping to EAPI 5 it is recommended to do a rev bump so this sub-slot |
33 |
> > business can be recorded in the vdb. |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > Are there any others that aren't personal opinion? |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > Course you can do a rev bump for whatever reason you want, but some people |
38 |
> > will frown on it unless you have a good reason. eg. if you revbump a |
39 |
> > stable ebuild for a build fix i will spend some time sighing at my screen. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Actually per PMS you are required to revbump (and therefore require |
42 |
> upgrade on users' side) whenever you change the deps and don't expect |
43 |
> to add a new version soon enough. Otherwise your changes don't get |
44 |
> spread and users end up with never-ending blockers and stuff like that. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter |
47 |
> and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones. This is |
48 |
> supposedly wrong, supposedly slow but allows us to be lazy. |
49 |
|
50 |
Thank god. That is insane. |
51 |
|
52 |
Let's not document that one in the manual. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
57 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
58 |
|
59 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |