From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3RD8Ftc023530 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:08:15 GMT Received: from host-216-153-235-25.ind.choiceone.net ([216.153.235.25] helo=aei-tech.com) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQmH6-0002Fv-GP for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:08:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 17305 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2005 08:08:18 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.153?) (192.168.2.153) by 192.168.1.1 with SMTP; 27 Apr 2005 08:08:18 -0500 From: Caleb Tennis Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] why do different ebuilds have the same version number? Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:05:32 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <20050427130938.GG20252@ulric.rafique.org> In-Reply-To: <20050427130938.GG20252@ulric.rafique.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504270805.32538.caleb@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 37ff0ac2-b54b-476f-b4c2-ec0f6f1ebc49 X-Archives-Hash: 0559a48057ba4e725e158b794b67d0c1 > Is it accepted practice to allow for changes in an ebuild without changing > the ebuild version number? It's a bad practice, but it also saves the end user from having to re-emerge packages which have minor changes in them that may or may not affect them. > Background > ---------- > After emerging the latest stable ruby (1.8.2-r1), I found that ruby could > not find some of its modules. The default library paths hardcoded into ruby > were incorrect. To demonstrate: I committed it on Mar 23, and stabilized it on Apr 14th. A minor fix was made by another developer on Apr 19th which should only affect 64 bit users, however, the fix was made with a typo and was caught and fixed on Apr 20th. I guess we took a gamble in not bumping the revision, hoping to not have every Ruby user have to reinstall the package for something that may never have been a problem for them. This decision was helped by the fact that Ruby was rendered useless with this bug, and would force anyone who emerged it during that time would have to seek out some help to sort out the problem. Sorry if it wasn't an obvious solution - a quick look at the ChangeLog and bug reports reference therein quickly provides the resolution. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list