Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] version management for eclasses
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:19:58
Message-Id: 49CF2F2B.9040402@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] version management for eclasses by Amit Dor-Shifer
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Amit Dor-Shifer wrote:
5 > That environment.bz relates to the installed package? And "downgrading"
6 > means I'm installing a lesser version instead of the current, and not
7 > necessarily the prev. one in-line. I might be downgrading to a *very*
8 > old version.
9 >
10 > I can see how a/m archive can aid in removing the current version.
11 > However, the replacing package also relies on eclass code, and it might
12 > rely on code which was already gone when I initially created the ebuild
13 > of the current version.
14 >
15 > Here's an example timeline:
16 > 1. Creating myapp-1.0, inheriting myeclass.eclass "version a".
17 > 2. Modifying myeclass.eclass to "version b". myapp-2.0 is created.
18 > eclass is not backward-compatible.
19 > 3. ...
20 > 3. Creating myapp-20.0.
21 >
22 > On a system with myapp-20.0 (and eclass of at-least "version b"), I
23 > don't see how I would be able to downgrade to myapp-1.0, as "version a"
24 > of the eclass is nowhere to be found.
25
26 Well, it you're going to break the api and you're not willing to
27 update the api consumers, the logical thing to do is to copy
28 myeclass.eclass to myeclass-2.eclass when you break the api. Doesn't
29 that seem like a logical solution?
30 - --
31 Thanks,
32 Zac
33 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
34 Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
35
36 iEYEARECAAYFAknPLykACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPdogCcDM/k/JfVWl4jqmTzGd7QKl99
37 YaEAnAg8FXtMe0HwrhBwIOrxEMrS66mW
38 =H2aK
39 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] version management for eclasses Amit Dor-Shifer <amitds@××××××.com>