-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: > I've been through the list, and also read GLEP #33, in search for > recommended practices regarding eclasses. > the way I understand it, when an eclass is modified to accomodate a new > ebuild, old ebuilds are broken. Specifically, downgrading with those > broken ebuilds is no longer possible, as the eclass code they used to > execute is no longer available. > > So, basically, downgrade is possible only while dependent eclasses > haven't changed. And AFAIK, portage doesn't test whether inherited > eclasses were modified since the ebuild was signed. This means that > there's also no traceability: old ebuilds cannot say "When I was in > business, my inherited eclass was THIS". > > I'm wondering how do others address the downgrade issue.
Since portage-2.1.4, it's not a problem because we reuse /var/db/pkg/*/*/environment.bz2 which contains code from the original version of the eclass. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknLsWIACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNRnwCgk5qg9xpvAlgbik81ZqNvFWWb v4MAnj7lhwH/VMuUeRiD/BKFLv1ILdhS =yZQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
