On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:48:14 -0700 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/24/13 8:31 AM, Alex Alexander wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:15:51AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> Actually, Portage normally handles this situation gracefully by using > >> the dependencies from the portage tree instead of vdb. However, in the > >> case of a slot-operator dep, it always uses vdb. > >> > >> See bug 477544. > >> > >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477544 > > > > Aha, thanks for the bug, missed it. Well, my recommendation is still > > valid until portage gets fixed. Glad to know someone's looking into > > it though. > > Can we get that recommendation to the devmanual possibly? > > I'm still a little bit confused what exactly would warrant such a > revision bump, and why. Revision bumps are necessary when there are changes made to the files that are installed by a package. That's it. When bumping to EAPI 5 it is recommended to do a rev bump so this sub-slot business can be recorded in the vdb. Are there any others that aren't personal opinion? Course you can do a rev bump for whatever reason you want, but some people will frown on it unless you have a good reason. eg. if you revbump a stable ebuild for a build fix i will spend some time sighing at my screen. -- Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
