| 1 |
Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 2 |
> The question is not about crap in the upstream, but about changed |
| 3 |
> dependencies, behavior, whatever else. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That's a good point. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> E.g. we in downstream have some patches, when upstream changes |
| 8 |
> related code (e.g. applying our patches), ebuild fails to build. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I consider this a separate issue however. I would actually expect |
| 11 |
there to be a policy which forbids patches on live ebuilds. Make |
| 12 |
another live ebuild or maybe an overlay if you want to offer a |
| 13 |
different set of commits than the upstream repo. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For me, the whole point of live ebuilds is that they are the latest |
| 16 |
upstream code, no more, no less. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Everything in live ebuild can change, so it will fail. |
| 20 |
> It can be not crap, but some improvements, but it does not matter |
| 21 |
> for the possibility of building of a given ebuild. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Patches aside I completely agree that a live ebuild is a moving |
| 24 |
target, but to me that is a good thing, in fact the very essence |
| 25 |
of open source. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
//Peter |
Archives