On Friday 18 February 2005 23:03, Dan Armak wrote:
(B> On Friday 18 February 2005 14:47, Jason Stubbs wrote:
(B> > Correction: The eclass caching mechanism looks at the repository that the
(B> > ebuild was defined in. Therefore, the only people that are at risk are
(B> > those that use their CVS repository as PORTDIR or in PORTDIR_OVERLAY.
(B> >
(B> > So, here's the deal... Umm, I was going to write what the deal is, but
(B> > I'm still trying to figure it out. :(
(B>
(B> This isn't news, at least to me and some other devs... I last ran into this
(B> when I was managing the split ebuilds overlay in subversion @ berlios, and
(B> began importing the ebuilds into portage cvs.
(B>
(B> The deal is that you should never ever have non-identical copies of the
(B> same eclass in more than one place (whether PORTDIR or overlay).
(B>
(B> > Anyway, the thing I/we (I'll be gone for the weekend) need to know right
(B> > now is what people are willing to sacrifice and what they are not in
(B> > order to get a speedy (even if only temporary) resolution.
(B>
(B> What do you mean by 'sacrifice'? It's already broken and, AFAIK, has always
(B> been that way. Any change would have to be an improvement, wouldn't it?
(B
(BPlease, PLEASE, next time you see strange behaviour like this, speak loudly.
(BMost bugs are known and classified, even if only in individual portage dev's
(Bminds, but unknown bugs are terrible - especially when they effect committing
(Bto the main tree. *PLEASE* ask/notify!
(B
(BRegards,
(BJason Stubbs
(B
(B--
([email protected] mailing list
