| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 11 September 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase |
| 9 |
>> order to be part of EAPI 2? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to the way it |
| 12 |
>> used to be for all EAPIs. The change breaks lots of existing ebuilds |
| 13 |
>> (you claim you've probably fixed everything in ::gentoo, but you |
| 14 |
>> don't know that and you've definitely not fixed overlays), including |
| 15 |
>> ebuilds using a common documented technique recommended by the |
| 16 |
>> devmanual. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> If you want the new pkg_* ordering to go through at all, it really |
| 19 |
>> needs a lengthy discussion on its own and it mustn't apply to any |
| 20 |
>> action that involves any existing EAPI. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> I'd like the Council to say that for anything involving EAPIs 0, 1 or |
| 23 |
>> 2 we stick to the pkg_* phase ordering we've used years. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> What is the change of order you witnessed in table 6.11 of the draft? |
| 26 |
> Comparing that to the PMS on [3], the order looks identical to me |
| 27 |
> (except for the two new phases). Am I missing something? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Robert |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> [3] http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms.pdf Section 10.2 |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Previously, the order was different for upgrading/downgrading |
| 36 |
packages. You can see a summary of the problem in bug #235020 [1]. I |
| 37 |
sent a note to @-dev [2] with a list of all packages *in the tree* |
| 38 |
which were affected by the most common problem of the order change |
| 39 |
(using has_version in pkg_postinst), all of them were quickly fixed by |
| 40 |
Zac. But there may be more packages affected not included there. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 |
| 43 |
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27feec8fc563e406b174386d24c39fdc.xml |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Regards, |
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 48 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
Archives