| 1 |
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Hi Marius, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Not realistic. Think about it: |
| 6 |
> - upstream location for a package changes, so old SRC_URI stops |
| 7 |
> working. If we don't update the existing ebuild people can't use it |
| 8 |
> anymore, if we bump it to a new revision existing users "have to" |
| 9 |
> perform a pointless update. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In that case I agree to keep the version number, but mostly some |
| 12 |
other stuff is changed too, i.e. dependencies and the version number |
| 13 |
is still kept the same. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> - a mistake in the ebuild prevents installation for 10% of the users, |
| 16 |
> but doesn't affect runtime behavior. SHould we bump it just for that |
| 17 |
> and "force" the other 90% of the users to perform a pointless update? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes. This is in general a good idea, any mistake in an ebuild should |
| 20 |
be corrected by increasing the version number. I am not aware what |
| 21 |
the guide-lines say, but it is my opinion to let others know: the |
| 22 |
ebuild was buggy, see changelog... bla bla bla |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> - also due to eclasses this is practically impossible, if an eclass is |
| 25 |
> changed all ebuilds inheriting it are implicitly changed as well, |
| 26 |
> you can't really restrict that to revbumps. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well, I am not very familiar with eclasses, may be somebody else can |
| 29 |
give a hint? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Chers, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Cecilia |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives