On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 11 September 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700 >> >> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html >> >> By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase >> order to be part of EAPI 2? >> >> Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to the way it >> used to be for all EAPIs. The change breaks lots of existing ebuilds >> (you claim you've probably fixed everything in ::gentoo, but you >> don't know that and you've definitely not fixed overlays), including >> ebuilds using a common documented technique recommended by the >> devmanual. >> >> If you want the new pkg_* ordering to go through at all, it really >> needs a lengthy discussion on its own and it mustn't apply to any >> action that involves any existing EAPI. >> >> I'd like the Council to say that for anything involving EAPIs 0, 1 or >> 2 we stick to the pkg_* phase ordering we've used years. > > What is the change of order you witnessed in table 6.11 of the draft? > Comparing that to the PMS on [3], the order looks identical to me > (except for the two new phases). Am I missing something? > > > Robert > > [3] http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms.pdf Section 10.2 >
Previously, the order was different for upgrading/downgrading packages. You can see a summary of the problem in bug #235020 [1]. I sent a note to @-dev [2] with a list of all packages *in the tree* which were affected by the most common problem of the order change (using has_version in pkg_postinst), all of them were quickly fixed by Zac. But there may be more packages affected not included there. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27feec8fc563e406b174386d24c39fdc.xml Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
