1 |
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:55:02AM +0100, Penguin Lover b.n. squawked: |
2 |
> It's 4 years I'm using Gentoo and I can still be surprised by it. :) |
3 |
> This doesn't look right. Why do devs upgrade ebuilds and do not increase |
4 |
> the -rX versioning? |
5 |
|
6 |
Look at the Gentoo Developer Handbook |
7 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1 |
8 |
|
9 |
Specifically the section on "Versioning and revision bumps". I quote: |
10 |
|
11 |
"If you make an internal, stylistic change to the ebuild that does |
12 |
not change any of the installed files, then there is no need to bump |
13 |
the revision number. Likewise, if you fix a compilation problem in |
14 |
the ebuild that was affecting some users, there is no need to bump |
15 |
the revision number, since those for whom it worked perfectly would |
16 |
see no benefit in installing a new revision, and those who |
17 |
experienced the problem do not have the package installed (since |
18 |
compilation failed) and thus have no need for the new revision number |
19 |
to force an upgrade. A revision bump is also not necessary if a |
20 |
minority of users will be affected and the package has a nontrivial |
21 |
average compilation time; use your best judgement in these |
22 |
circumstances. " |
23 |
|
24 |
The changes made to OpenOffice in this case are minor (example: a |
25 |
virtual is added for some perl package, and the dependency is changed |
26 |
from depending on the explicit package to the virtual), and should not |
27 |
effect already working installations; furthermore, considering how |
28 |
much memory and time one needs to compile OpenOffice, I say the gentoo |
29 |
policy is quite sane about not forcing a revision bump. |
30 |
|
31 |
W |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
The police recently arrested a man selling "secret formula" tablets he claimed |
35 |
gave eternal youth. When going through their files they noticed it was the |
36 |
fifth time he was caught for committing this same criminal medical fraud. He |
37 |
had earlier bookings from 1794, 1856, 1928 and 1983.... |
38 |
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 767 days, 22:53 |