From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hy3VH-00019N-80 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:21:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5CAJeYY015615; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:19:40 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5CAGdMp011684 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:16:39 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B64B8D30C for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:47:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04834-09 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:47:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from posidon.ferdyx.org (posidon.ferdyx.org [192.168.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B748D305 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by posidon.ferdyx.org (nbSMTP-1.01-cvs) for uid 1000 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) ferdy@gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:16:31 +0200 From: "Fernando J. Pereda" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do not modify ebuilds which are already in the tree... even if masked Message-ID: <20070612101631.GC4738@ferdyx.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hYooF8G/hrfVAmum" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: ecc34224-aa6b-4865-844b-93bc0e9c89af X-Archives-Hash: 818091160ace35f0ed247cf23d77860c --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:07:11PM +0200, cilly wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > I think it is worth to discuss about `Do not modify ebuilds which are > already in the tree... even if masked.` >=20 > Sometimes ebuilds which are already in the portage tree are modified > without changing the version-number, i.e. ebuild-r1 is in the portage > tree and the ebuild-r1 gets changed, i.e. useflag or other issues > without changing the version number to ebuild-r2. This causes > confusion i.e. in bug-reports. >=20 > My opinion is not to change any ebuild which is in the portage tree, > even if the ebuild is masked. I think the better way is to add an > ebuild with an updated version number, even if the ebuild is still > masked. >=20 > I also recommend to manage hard-masked packages the same way, it > prevents confusion in bug-reports. >=20 > What do you think? I think this is also a bad idea. I seem to recall that this is documented somewhere in the Developer Handbook... - ferdy --=20 Fernando J. Pereda Garcimart=EDn 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGbnJ/CkhbDGC9KNQRAi4fAJwOnPZAcIBE0ffEQ1lJvUBfB6qNwwCdH9tB bflTm9sw/fONgiKwC5PtxUs= =QIir -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hYooF8G/hrfVAmum-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list