Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Help?
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:58:46
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Help? by Donnie Berkholz
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:51:20 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:

> > What's the motivation behind this? I can think of several reasons > > why a package maintainer would need to touch a stable ebuild. > > Could you provide a few examples? It's impossible for anyone else to > come up with solutions to problems that haven't been described. > > Once it's stable, it should be static. If they need to make changes, > they should make them in a new revision & stabilize it. That may > require a slight change in our workflow to reduce stabilization > periods in these cases. But I think it's a superior approach to an > ever-changing single revision, as long as portage handles revisions > of filenames instead of revisions of git.
Well, if we could get rid of the 30 day wait to get anything done in stable-land then, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Pretty much all the examples I have in mind hinge on that. Nothing aggravates me more than having a broken package in stable and having to wait a month to fix it. What about things that don't require a revbump though, like build fixes? If the stable version of a package doesn't build with GCC 4.3, and the current unstable can't go stable any time soon (say it breaks ABI or is generally crap), then I have two choices. I can do an unstable revbump consisting of the stable version + a backported patch, or I can just backport the patch directly to the stable version. I currently do the latter, not just because I don't have the time and patience to track these packages for 30 days, file the stabilization bugs, try to get vapier to stabilize s390 and m86k, discover vapier stabilized them a month ago and didn't tell anyone, and generally follow them through to the end -- I did exactly this for GCC 4.1 and it took _over a year_ to sort out -- but also because I don't believe in forcing a rebuild on people for no good reason. If a stable package has an ewarn at the end telling the user they must run "mypackage-updater", and that util is later renamed, do we really need to do a revbump? What about homepage moves? What about stable ebuilds that have a dependency on a package that is then moved to another category? Or USE flag renames? I don't think any of these things should require a rebuild. On the other hand, I see where you're coming from. If changes were made to the process, namely doing away with the arbitrary time limit for trivial changes, then I think I could agree. One other thing I was thinking of - would package maintainers still have write access to the stable tree? If not, who cleans out old ebuilds? -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature