| 1 |
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:20:36PM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nikos Chantziaras posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:35 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On 05/11/2011 03:32 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> >> Hash: SHA1 |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> Dne 11.5.2011 13:05, Nikos Chantziaras napsal(a): |
| 9 |
> >>> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian |
| 10 |
> >>> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform. |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>> |
| 13 |
> >> With this approach you could ask why we bump each kde release. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> As most of the apps does not change at all. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > I don't know :-P Avoiding needless bumps was, IIRC, one of the reasons |
| 18 |
> > Gentoo uses split ebuilds. Anyway, I mentioned this because in the |
| 19 |
> > past, at least one time, a version bump for Qt was omitted exactly |
| 20 |
> > because there were no changes. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I have in fact wondered about just that. Back when the kde split ebuilds |
| 23 |
> were being created, one of the big advantages was said to be that most kde |
| 24 |
> bumps didn't actually change anything for most apps, and we could keep the |
| 25 |
> same versions. But recently I've seen comments from the kde folks saying |
| 26 |
> most don't, but we bump anyway, and I know everything does seem to be |
| 27 |
> bumped. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Is that simply because it's simpler to track everything at the same |
| 30 |
> version, instead of having kdelibs at 4.6.3 and kmail, for instance, still |
| 31 |
> at 4.6.0? (That was in fact one of my worries with the initial thinking, |
| 32 |
> that it'd be difficult to know whether upstream had updated and gentoo/kde |
| 33 |
> had problems with it for gentoo and hadn't updated, or whether upstream |
| 34 |
> simply hadn't updated that package. When the versions are all synced with |
| 35 |
> upstream regardless of changes, that's not an issue, even if it does mean |
| 36 |
> much more "useless" building.) |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -- |
| 39 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 40 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 41 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
To my perspective, split ebuilds ease the integration of patches. You can |
| 45 |
patch a single ebuild and not have to rebuild everything else. But, when |
| 46 |
it comes to version bumps, I think it is more safe to bump everything. |
| 47 |
Do note that we apply patches more frequently than we do version bumps, |
| 48 |
so it is definitely worth the pain of having split ebuilds. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Regards, |
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
Archives