| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002, Mark wrote: |
| 2 |
> UPDATE QUESTION. |
| 3 |
> Lets say I wan't a newer version of Ruby. |
| 4 |
> By the looks of it, all I have to do is change the name of the script. |
| 5 |
> So the question is "should I"? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Personally, I have no problem changing the name of a ebuild and trying to |
| 8 |
merge it. Portage is pretty smart about knowing what belongs to what |
| 9 |
ebuild, so unmerging a totally fouled up merge isnt really a problem. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So to get to the point, IMHO its fine, though you should double-check the |
| 12 |
ebuild to make sure the person who wrote it didnt get lazy and hard-code |
| 13 |
the version anywhere other than in the filename. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I would reccomend writing your own ebuild first, just to get a feel for how |
| 16 |
everything works. It is *very* easy to write ebuilds for the most part |
| 17 |
(except for KDE related ebuilds which are still very easy but require a |
| 18 |
little understanding of the eclasses), so give it a shot, look at |
| 19 |
/usr/portage/skel.build and so on.... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> A change this minor seems to trivial to email to someone, or get CVS |
| 22 |
> access for. |
| 23 |
> So can someone do it? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Assuming changing the name works, I usually drop a note to the maintainer |
| 26 |
and/or the submission area (used to be gentoo-ebuild, now bugzilla at |
| 27 |
bugz.gentoo.org) simply saying "new version available, changing the ebuild |
| 28 |
name works". Nobody ever told me this was annoying or anything, so I've |
| 29 |
assumed this is the right way to go about it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
HTH, |
| 32 |
-Tom |
Archives