[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Changes in installed ebuilds

[Jörg Schaible]

Jan Matejka wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:40 +0200
> Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@×××.de> wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> >> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed for
>> >> an existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g.
>> >> dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)?
>> >
>> > Please see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91615
>>
>> These blocks had nothing to do with the multilibs ABI. It has been
>> just the updated versions for the dependencies.
>>
>> >> I have to use an older Eclipse 3.8.x version for my daily work and
>> >> since it is broken with latest gtk versions (a lot of crashes), I
>> >> use still some old ebuilds and have masked new ones.
>> >
>> > Please file a bug report about this. If nobody tells us that a new
>> > gtk+ version broke something important, we will soon mark the new
>> > version as stable and then remove the old version.
>
> My understanding the problematic change is:
>
> - -CDEPEND=">=dev-libs/expat-2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> - -       >=dev-libs/glib-2.26:2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> - -       >=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]"
> +CDEPEND=">=dev-libs/expat-2.1.0-r3[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> +       >=dev-libs/glib-2.38.2-r1:2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> +       >=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.18-r1[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]"
>
> given that only micro version was bumped for dbus and while glib
> changes minor version, it's the same slot. Therefore my understanding
> is the resulting libraries should not break API/ABI and therefore there
> shouldn't be an issue.


Except if they're locally hard masked ... ;-)


> In that case I think revbump is not warranted since it should continue
> to work for existing installation and new installations shouldn't be
> any different beside the dependency and not revbumping eliminates some
> needless rebuilts.


The point is: Why update silently the dependency versions for a stable 
release? Especially in this case, because the now "required" versions are 
the oldest stable ones in the official tree. Therefore anyone with the 
official tree would have had those anyway. But such an action may affect 
anyone with a local tree or overlays.


> And that seems to be the case since you say it's actually problem in
> eclipse …
>
>> I report anything, if it is worth it. However, in this case the
>> problem is on Eclipse's side and fixed in newer versions. Alas, it
>> does not help me, because I have to use that old version for my daily
>> work. So, there's no blame on Gentoo and nothing the devs should have
>> to waste their time.
>>
>> Therefore I still use the once stable versions of GTK (~5 months old
>> now), where this old version of Eclipse runs, i.e. I already
>> preserved some older versions locally that are already vanished from
>> the portage tree. The newer ones are hard masked.
>>
>> However, if some of my currently installed stable packages suddenly
>> require newer versions, my portage tree gets in serious trouble.
>> Nothing would have happen if the revision number of the affected
>> packages had been simply increased.
>
> I guess you could fork the needed packages (you can always get older
> versions from cvs) into your custom overlay for old eclipse and maintain
> them there under some slot.


That's what I actually did for all "bumped" packages in the end. Effort for 
nothing.

 
> Caveat Emptor: I'm not particulary experienced with neither API/ABI
> changes and slotting so I don't know how accurate this information is.


Cheers,
Jörg