[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages broken by phase ordering change

[Ryan Hill]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:24 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:55:29 +0200
> > "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o> wrote:
> > > As discussed in bug #222721, portage has changed the execution
> > > order of phases. It seems the change was introduced in
> > > portage-2.1.5 and it makes that, when upgrading a package,
> > > pkg_postinst is run after the old version has been removed. This
> > > breaks packages which use has_version in pkg_postinst to detect
> > > upgrades/downgrades. It can also break packages in more subtle
> > > ways.
> >
> > Given that the number of affected ebuilds is so high, I'd say
> > Portage should have to revert the changes...
>
> Of course, you would.  What else would we expect from you?
>
> > This is an EAPI scope change, if anything. Although even then the
> > implications are a bit messy since you're talking the interaction of
> > two different EAPIs.
>
> It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change.  That's
> not very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time
> since PMS was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0
> or EAPI=1 (or PMS, for that matter).  What we have gotten is a
> half-assed "you can use EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated
> features" from the Council, but that's nothing like acceptance of a
> spec.  Perhaps if you spent a little more time doing something more
> constructive than being an asshat on the lists, PMS would have been
> approved long ago.  Of course, that doesn't mesh well with your
> apparent need to be a complete dick to people, so continue on with
> the status quo.

I don't want to start yet another hundred post thread here[i], but our
etiquette policy applies to everyone here, and I would have hoped that
as a senior developer you could at least try to take the high road and
set an example.

I know this is hypocritical coming from someone who recently called you
a giant flaming asshole, but I've been trying hard since to be more
civil because I realize that kind of behaviour is unacceptable and
nonconstructive (and again I apologize).

I'm not picking you out here, this applies to all of us (you too
Ciaran).  I mean c'mon, let's quit the bitching and get shit done
already.

[i] IOW don't reply to this mail please  :P


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662