| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
cilly wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 6 |
>> - a mistake in the ebuild prevents installation for 10% of the users, |
| 7 |
>> but doesn't affect runtime behavior. SHould we bump it just for that |
| 8 |
>> and "force" the other 90% of the users to perform a pointless update? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yes. This is in general a good idea, any mistake in an ebuild should be |
| 11 |
> corrected by increasing the version number. I am not aware what the |
| 12 |
> guide-lines say, but it is my opinion to let others know: the ebuild was |
| 13 |
> buggy, see changelog... bla bla bla |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
BEARD! If an ebuild I maintain gets a fix so that it can now build for |
| 16 |
mips (or arm, or any other vital, important, but realistically small, |
| 17 |
small, small segment of the user community) where it didn't before, and |
| 18 |
it doesn't affect the other users, i'm not bumping it. I fail to see the |
| 19 |
point in bumping a package when the only change is |
| 20 |
use arm && doblah |
| 21 |
what's the point? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- -- |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- -----o()o---------------------------------------------- |
| 27 |
Michael Cummings | #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl |
| 28 |
Gentoo Perl Dev | on irc.freenode.net |
| 29 |
Gentoo/SPARC |
| 30 |
Gentoo/AMD64 |
| 31 |
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E |
| 32 |
- -----o()o---------------------------------------------- |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iD8DBQFGbo+lq1ztTp5/Ti4RApULAJ9eCKY8+7+Oa7X4lt2hrAPOK5XX0ACfRl03 |
| 37 |
6Ti0/2u+BgqvM9n42H+Cksk= |
| 38 |
=zrPV |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives