| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hey all, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several |
| 6 |
> > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Does 'several' in this case mean more than one? Please correct me if |
| 9 |
> I'm mistaken but the only change I can think of were the changes |
| 10 |
> in python-single-r1. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the |
| 13 |
> > changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a |
| 14 |
> > widely used eclass it breaks overlays with little to no notice; |
| 15 |
> > especially since we do not require developers to be subscribed to this |
| 16 |
> > mailing list. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I do agree that overlay authors are on their own to fix things, but we need to |
| 19 |
> > find a way to notify them when a breaking change is going into a widely |
| 20 |
> > used eclass and give them time to adjust their ebuilds. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > If the old way of doing things cannot be supported |
| 23 |
> > along side the new way the correct path forward is a new version of the |
| 24 |
> > eclass then a lastrites on the old version. That would give overlay |
| 25 |
> > authors time to switch to the new eclass. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > If the old and new way can be supported in the same code base, a |
| 28 |
> > reasonable way forward is to allow both ways to exist while ::gentoo is |
| 29 |
> > migrated to the new code path then do the equivalent of a lastrites for |
| 30 |
> > the old code path so overlay authors can adjust their ebuilds. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The lesson was learned. If a similar change would be necessary |
| 34 |
> in the future, I will bump the eclass instead. I don't understand why |
| 35 |
> you bring that today. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The change that blew us up today was |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aa45f4f86f9b865eb0fe7344d83a7258 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
and this is the reason I brought it to the ml. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The previous change that blew us up was |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4bf9f0250115c57779f93817356df871 |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Thanks, |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
William |
Archives