| 1 |
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:22 +0300 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 21/07/14 22:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300 |
| 5 |
> > Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like |
| 7 |
> >> EAPI4->5 |
| 8 |
> > EAPI changing to 5 should always get a revbump, since it causes |
| 9 |
> > confusion if anyone has a USE dependency upon your package. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What kind of confusion? In my experience, Portage handles it well |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The way (+) and (-) work depends upon the EAPI of the things they're |
| 14 |
being matched against (not the EAPI of the package with the |
| 15 |
dependencies). When developers are adding in >= dependencies to |
| 16 |
restrict to matching against EAPI 5 things (as they have to do for |
| 17 |
multilib, for example), they would need to check the CVS log to see if |
| 18 |
any ebuild has *ever* been EAPI < 5. It's less work and less error-prone |
| 19 |
for developers to just always do a bump when switching to EAPI 5. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives