| 1 |
On 20/10/12 13:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Hey all -- there was just a discussion in #gentoo-dev about this, so |
| 5 |
>> following up here.. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Due to the fact that an EAPI-bump can imply different behaviour from |
| 8 |
>> eclasses or the PM, an EAPI-bump should in most cases also require an |
| 9 |
>> ebuild revbump. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> Why i'm bringing this up here, is because Chansaw and I were wondering |
| 12 |
>> if common sense will not be enough to ensure this and it should be |
| 13 |
>> made a policy to revbump when migrating to a new EAPI ? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So far the guideline was that a revbump isn't required if the files |
| 16 |
> installed by the ebuild don't change, or if there are only trivial |
| 17 |
> changes that don't affect functionality (like files going to |
| 18 |
> /usr/share/doc). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I don't see why EAPI bumps should be handled differently from other |
| 21 |
> changes to the ebuild. If the installed files don't change, why would |
| 22 |
> one impose upon the user to recompile the package? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Ulrich |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
+1. PM's that can't handle EAPI bump without revbump are broken in my |
| 28 |
eyes. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If the content doesn't change, then revbumps are *annoying waste of CPU |
| 31 |
cycles* |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
- Samuli |
Archives