| 1 |
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:55:29 +0200 |
| 3 |
> "Santiago M. Mola" <coldwind@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > As discussed in bug #222721, portage has changed the execution order |
| 5 |
> > of phases. It seems the change was introduced in portage-2.1.5 and it |
| 6 |
> > makes that, when upgrading a package, pkg_postinst is run after the |
| 7 |
> > old version has been removed. This breaks packages which use |
| 8 |
> > has_version in pkg_postinst to detect upgrades/downgrades. It can also |
| 9 |
> > break packages in more subtle ways. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Given that the number of affected ebuilds is so high, I'd say Portage |
| 12 |
> should have to revert the changes... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Of course, you would. What else would we expect from you? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> This is an EAPI scope change, if anything. Although even then the |
| 17 |
> implications are a bit messy since you're talking the interaction of |
| 18 |
> two different EAPIs. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change. That's not |
| 21 |
very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time since PMS |
| 22 |
was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0 or EAPI=1 (or |
| 23 |
PMS, for that matter). What we have gotten is a half-assed "you can use |
| 24 |
EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated features" from the Council, |
| 25 |
but that's nothing like acceptance of a spec. Perhaps if you spent a |
| 26 |
little more time doing something more constructive than being an asshat |
| 27 |
on the lists, PMS would have been approved long ago. Of course, that |
| 28 |
doesn't mesh well with your apparent need to be a complete dick to |
| 29 |
people, so continue on with the status quo. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 33 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 34 |
Games Developer |
Archives