On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:19:20PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several > > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately. > > Does 'several' in this case mean more than one? Please correct me if > I'm mistaken but the only change I can think of were the changes > in python-single-r1. > > > It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the > > changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a > > widely used eclass it breaks overlays with little to no notice; > > especially since we do not require developers to be subscribed to this > > mailing list. > > > > I do agree that overlay authors are on their own to fix things, but we need > > to > > find a way to notify them when a breaking change is going into a widely > > used eclass and give them time to adjust their ebuilds. > > > > If the old way of doing things cannot be supported > > along side the new way the correct path forward is a new version of the > > eclass then a lastrites on the old version. That would give overlay > > authors time to switch to the new eclass. > > > > If the old and new way can be supported in the same code base, a > > reasonable way forward is to allow both ways to exist while ::gentoo is > > migrated to the new code path then do the equivalent of a lastrites for > > the old code path so overlay authors can adjust their ebuilds. > > > > The lesson was learned. If a similar change would be necessary > in the future, I will bump the eclass instead. I don't understand why > you bring that today.
The change that blew us up today was https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aa45f4f86f9b865eb0fe7344d83a7258 and this is the reason I brought it to the ml. The previous change that blew us up was https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4bf9f0250115c57779f93817356df871 Thanks, William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
