| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:09:17 +0100 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I like dosed because I've used it many times for the $D-removing |
| 4 |
> feature. If there was (is?) an automatic filter at install-time that |
| 5 |
> scanned files to remove $D references, that would work for me instead. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The fix is to write code that does exactly what you need, rather than |
| 8 |
relying upon weird voodoo. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > I think you're misunderstanding what this is for. It's to allow |
| 11 |
> > packages to work out whether they're upgrading / downgrading / |
| 12 |
> > reinstalling / whatever, since Zac broke the devmanual-documented |
| 13 |
> > and PMS-required way of doing it using has_version and refuses to |
| 14 |
> > revert it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Ah, I see. This is the first I'd heard about this anywhere (the |
| 17 |
> problem or the proposal). So running has_version in setup/preinst and |
| 18 |
> again in postinst doesn't do what you'd want anymore? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
They don't do what the devmanual says they do these days, yes. Zac |
| 21 |
decided to change the version order code a while ago without telling |
| 22 |
anyone, and without an EAPI bump. After he was told it broke a load of |
| 23 |
ebuilds (and devmanual-described things), which he didn't know about |
| 24 |
before he implemented the changes, he went and fixed some, but probably |
| 25 |
not all, things relying upon it in a big commit spree... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives