On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 06:46:02 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 04 November 2006 06:14, Petteri Räty wrote: > > Zac Medico kirjoitti: > > > What do people think about these two approaches? Personally, I > > > would prefer approach #2 for the sake of simplicity and > > > maintainability. The sooner that we start storing eclasses.tbz2 > > > for each installed package, the sooner that we will be able to > > > have more freedom with the eclasses in the live portage tree. > > > > One thing that comes to mind is that how do we handle the case > > where the old version of the eclass has a major bug in pkg_postrm > > for example. I think it is also possible that changes into a eclass introduce a new unexpected bug, so this shouldn't be the only reason to stop doing this. How about introducing a variable OBSOLETES="list of cvs revisions", this way it can be automatically detected if the cached ebuild/eclass can be used or if it needs to be ignored and the newer version from portage that obsoletes it has to be used? > that would be the only thing keeping me from saying LETS DO #2 NOW ;) I'd vote, lets do #2 in any case. Yuri. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
