| 1 |
cilly wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I think it's worth to discuss the `behaviour of removing ebuilds from |
| 5 |
> the tree`. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Currently it's up to the developer, some people are more conservative, |
| 8 |
some prefer to get rid of certain stuff asap. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You should differentiate between ~ and stable ones btw... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets updated |
| 13 |
> the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This happens only when: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- there are security concerns |
| 18 |
- the old ebuild was there till ages and the new one had been in ~ since |
| 19 |
ages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> In my opinion, it is better to keep the older ebuild around for a while since |
| 22 |
> if there are some bugs in the newer ebuild, users are able to downgrade easily. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
that's is quite up to the specific applications IMHO. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> What do you think? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'd leave it up to the developer, nothing is lost in gentoo and fetching |
| 29 |
from the attic isn't exactly difficult. Still probably having a note to |
| 30 |
make people aware of that could be useful since the problem you pointed |
| 31 |
doesn't require any more work to be solved. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> PS: other topics to be discussed `Not to modify ebuilds which are |
| 34 |
> already in the tree... even if masked` what do you think? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I probably understood what you mean and well, no, I don't think is a |
| 37 |
good idea. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
lu - that prefers less rules and more people aware. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Luca Barbato |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 47 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives