Dnia 2013-07-24, o godz. 13:23:15 Ryan Hill <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> 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. Actually per PMS you are required to revbump (and therefore require upgrade on users' side) whenever you change the deps and don't expect to add a new version soon enough. Otherwise your changes don't get spread and users end up with never-ending blockers and stuff like that. Other thing is that Portage explicitly ignores PMS in this matter and uses dependencies from ebuilds rather than recorded ones. This is supposedly wrong, supposedly slow but allows us to be lazy. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
