| 1 |
Technically speaking (ok, so this is in policy somewhere at some point in |
| 2 |
time, it's late, I'm tired) if it's a typo fix, the ebuild isn't bumped - |
| 3 |
bumps (should) only occur when the change affects the code that is produced, |
| 4 |
or otherwise alters/enhances functionality. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
-mike, just a perl guy |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 03:43:04PM +0000, Andr? Ventura Lemos wrote: |
| 10 |
> Maybe have -r? for _normal updates_ and -t? for small typo, _don't |
| 11 |
> upgrade if it's working_ kind of updates? :-) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> just a thought :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 15:36, Jean-Francois Patenaude wrote: |
| 18 |
> > Hello, |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > I would like to know if it would be possible to have emerge --update |
| 21 |
> > only do updates that are important. I mean that I don't always feel like |
| 22 |
> > recompiling large packages for minor changes (little configuration tuning, |
| 23 |
> > spelling mistake in scripts, ...) while I would want to recompile those |
| 24 |
> > packages for serious improvment and/or bug fixes. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Maybe one could classify the portage release with a sub number that would |
| 27 |
> > indicate minor changes or at least non-critical changes. Then after, |
| 28 |
> > a correctly modified emerge could be asked to skip such updates. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > Jf. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> I/O, I/O, |
| 35 |
> It's off to disk I go, |
| 36 |
> A bit or byte to read or write, |
| 37 |
> I/O, I/O, I/O... |
| 38 |
> |
Archives