On 22.5.2012 8.53, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >> Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing. >> First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then >> remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out >> of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to >> justify the significant breakage of portage tree. > > First of all, to quote devmanual: > > | Before updating eutils or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to > | email the gentoo-dev list. It may be that your proposed change is > | broken in a way you had not anticipated> [...]. If you don't email > | gentoo-dev first, and end up breaking something, expect to be in a > | lot of trouble. > > Not that this disrespect for this rule is something new... >
Even more important is the next chapter: "When removing a function or changing the API of an eclass, make sure that it doesn't break any ebuilds in the tree, and post a notice to gentoo-dev at least 30 days in advance, preferably with a patch included." This qualifies as changing the API of an eclass. This chapter comes from a council decision: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt Regards, Petteri
