| 1 |
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:24:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> We have "has_version" function to check if user has |
| 4 |
> actually updated from relevant version. Please use this to not |
| 5 |
> confuse users who installed the package first time or are upgrading |
| 6 |
> from Y to another version. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Doing it using has_version isn't really recommended, since... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
...if EAPIs before 2 are involved, the order of pkg_ functions on an |
| 11 |
upgrade, reinstall or downgrade might not be what you expect. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
...the behaviour of has_version in the case of upgrades, reinstalls or |
| 14 |
downgrades may not be what you expect. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
...the behaviour of has_version in the case of upgrades, reinstalls or |
| 17 |
downgrades is not what it used to be due to a non-EAPI-controlled |
| 18 |
change in behaviour from Portage, meaning some documentation and |
| 19 |
examples are now wrong, and the way you used to do it doesn't work any |
| 20 |
more. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
...an upgrade can result in the removal of two versions of a package, |
| 23 |
not just one, if slots have changed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's thus much better to use REPLACING_VERSIONS (which is plural, and |
| 26 |
this is important) rather than has_version, if you're asking about the |
| 27 |
current package rather than another package. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives