1 |
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 13:14 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: |
2 |
> On 20/10/12 13:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
> >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >> Hey all -- there was just a discussion in #gentoo-dev about this, so |
6 |
> >> following up here.. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> Due to the fact that an EAPI-bump can imply different behaviour from |
9 |
> >> eclasses or the PM, an EAPI-bump should in most cases also require an |
10 |
> >> ebuild revbump. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> >> Why i'm bringing this up here, is because Chansaw and I were wondering |
13 |
> >> if common sense will not be enough to ensure this and it should be |
14 |
> >> made a policy to revbump when migrating to a new EAPI ? |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > So far the guideline was that a revbump isn't required if the files |
17 |
> > installed by the ebuild don't change, or if there are only trivial |
18 |
> > changes that don't affect functionality (like files going to |
19 |
> > /usr/share/doc). |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > I don't see why EAPI bumps should be handled differently from other |
22 |
> > changes to the ebuild. If the installed files don't change, why would |
23 |
> > one impose upon the user to recompile the package? |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > Ulrich |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> +1. PM's that can't handle EAPI bump without revbump are broken in my |
29 |
> eyes. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> If the content doesn't change, then revbumps are *annoying waste of CPU |
32 |
> cycles* |
33 |
> |
34 |
> - Samuli |
35 |
> |
36 |
> |
37 |
|
38 |
+1 |