| 1 |
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700 |
| 2 |
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situation gracefully by using |
| 7 |
> >> the dependencies from the portage tree instead of vdb. However, in the |
| 8 |
> >> case of a slot-operator dep, it always uses vdb. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> See bug 477544. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477544 |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Aha, thanks for the bug, missed it. Well, my recommendation is still |
| 15 |
> > valid until portage gets fixed. Glad to know someone's looking into |
| 16 |
> > it though. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Can we get that recommendation to the devmanual possibly? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'm still a little bit confused what exactly would warrant such a |
| 21 |
> revision bump, and why. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Revision bumps are necessary when there are changes made to the files that are |
| 24 |
installed by a package. That's it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
When bumping to EAPI 5 it is recommended to do a rev bump so this sub-slot |
| 27 |
business can be recorded in the vdb. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Are there any others that aren't personal opinion? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Course you can do a rev bump for whatever reason you want, but some people will |
| 32 |
frown on it unless you have a good reason. eg. if you revbump a stable ebuild |
| 33 |
for a build fix i will spend some time sighing at my screen. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 38 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives