Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:38:28
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X by Joshua Jackson
1 Joshua Jackson wrote:
2 > In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't see
3 > much point in the change. They will be removed within a fairly short
4 > amount of time.
6 Fairly short meaning what, 6 months? A lot of old ebuilds tend to stick
7 around forever.
9 > Secondary, you are suggesting that any dev who comes
10 > across a modular x problem to fix it..even if this is a direct
11 > violation of the guidelines set forth in the documentation?
13 Which guidelines, exactly? I'm having trouble finding these vague
14 guidelines to which you refer.
16 I found one that said "If you make an internal, stylistic change to the
17 ebuild that does not change any of the installed files, then there is no
18 need to bump the revision number."
20 I also found "When a package version has proved stable for sufficient
21 time and the Gentoo maintainer of the package is confident that the
22 upgrade will not break a regular Gentoo user's machine, then it can be
23 moved from ~ARCH to ARCH," which, to my reading, can also apply to
24 transferring ~arch modular X deps to stable.
26 Thanks,
27 Donnie


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X Joshua Jackson <tsunam@g.o>