| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: |
| 5 |
> I've been through the list, and also read GLEP #33, in search for |
| 6 |
> recommended practices regarding eclasses. |
| 7 |
> the way I understand it, when an eclass is modified to accomodate a new |
| 8 |
> ebuild, old ebuilds are broken. Specifically, downgrading with those |
| 9 |
> broken ebuilds is no longer possible, as the eclass code they used to |
| 10 |
> execute is no longer available. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So, basically, downgrade is possible only while dependent eclasses |
| 13 |
> haven't changed. And AFAIK, portage doesn't test whether inherited |
| 14 |
> eclasses were modified since the ebuild was signed. This means that |
| 15 |
> there's also no traceability: old ebuilds cannot say "When I was in |
| 16 |
> business, my inherited eclass was THIS". |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'm wondering how do others address the downgrade issue. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Since portage-2.1.4, it's not a problem because we reuse |
| 21 |
/var/db/pkg/*/*/environment.bz2 which contains code from the |
| 22 |
original version of the eclass. |
| 23 |
- -- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Zac |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iEYEARECAAYFAknLsWIACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNRnwCgk5qg9xpvAlgbik81ZqNvFWWb |
| 30 |
v4MAnj7lhwH/VMuUeRiD/BKFLv1ILdhS |
| 31 |
=yZQQ |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives