From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QKAPv-0003hW-VK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:29:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CFDA1C06B; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:29:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC921C08D for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so554765wwj.10 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NhWocdlC2RhT4+xcShD+CQh+9NY89jUCbgfpIg6G4CM=; b=Z8O3lbWRpqvuEZLGIyfu+VIbe8pWILsUTuv4bTQogB4U8b7wouuQr+2Wmefx6+8b15 p9xJAIDNpl9ck9IZnHm+iDIqX6IovFXkvN9Et8ApPNsoBQ8O6tG50PgHWrjyDBdW2r/e PLQgoZErSl3ci1gfl9FIBnVEuDdWimV5S7C68= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=sqRrHN9dB9WZUTwd+h4jRV5E5ip8ippWNWZDRZisOdTCy0QYguV/Nw3fRRDJDKkHbs QaVfZP1OHikmlhy8bcTwEki6LvWiKyOywfWJsWjh5Egoty14P0riJRPL8tj4o1gqf06T uh4btIEUbgPro/xP1El1aZCiiey5Z1PMej4TQ= Received: by 10.227.7.146 with SMTP id d18mr278701wbd.96.1305124077061; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Eternity.halls.manchester.ac.uk (wh147a.halls.manchester.ac.uk [130.88.185.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z9sm144196wbx.0.2011.05.11.07.27.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 May 2011 07:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Markos Chandras Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:27:48 +0100 From: Markos Chandras To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About the Qt 4.7.3 bump Message-ID: <20110511142748.GA13400@Eternity.halls.manchester.ac.uk> References: <4DCA81E5.9010502@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 2b4fc8432b9eac7b4cc5fb67a7b1fcbe --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:20:36PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Nikos Chantziaras posted on Wed, 11 May 2011 15:44:35 +0300 as excerpted: >=20 > > On 05/11/2011 03:32 PM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Dne 11.5.2011 13:05, Nikos Chantziaras napsal(a): > >>> Why did the bump to Qt 4.7.3 happen? AFAIK, it only contains Symbian > >>> changes, and Gentoo does not run on the Symbian platform. > >>> > >>> > >> With this approach you could ask why we bump each kde release. > >> > >> As most of the apps does not change at all. > >=20 > > I don't know :-P Avoiding needless bumps was, IIRC, one of the reasons > > Gentoo uses split ebuilds. Anyway, I mentioned this because in the > > past, at least one time, a version bump for Qt was omitted exactly > > because there were no changes. >=20 > I have in fact wondered about just that. Back when the kde split ebuilds= =20 > were being created, one of the big advantages was said to be that most kd= e=20 > bumps didn't actually change anything for most apps, and we could keep th= e=20 > same versions. But recently I've seen comments from the kde folks saying= =20 > most don't, but we bump anyway, and I know everything does seem to be=20 > bumped. >=20 > Is that simply because it's simpler to track everything at the same=20 > version, instead of having kdelibs at 4.6.3 and kmail, for instance, stil= l=20 > at 4.6.0? (That was in fact one of my worries with the initial thinking,= =20 > that it'd be difficult to know whether upstream had updated and gentoo/kd= e=20 > had problems with it for gentoo and hadn't updated, or whether upstream= =20 > simply hadn't updated that package. When the versions are all synced wit= h=20 > upstream regardless of changes, that's not an issue, even if it does mean= =20 > much more "useless" building.) >=20 > --=20 > Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. > "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- > and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman >=20 >=20 To my perspective, split ebuilds ease the integration of patches. You can patch a single ebuild and not have to rebuild everything else. But, when it comes to version bumps, I think it is more safe to bump everything. Do note that we apply patches more frequently than we do version bumps, so it is definitely worth the pain of having split ebuilds. Regards, --=20 Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJNypzkAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCHh8P/27GCyVBuufxDHeDBr8rpyiN 2PTVmcvA3YmJGDr1R7Z6mHLlN+jry+RvB6arGxlQ0DtWfGisyiyFslv5mEgR0mUQ PlsXGkwZTN/wzpiwcaj6GByDH/1k32ZmUYxxRYJavImMlfSE6hmeLEFVDizmlpKJ GzrFpHYOUAEPMA0cRZKCnpSjUzSUs3s5t6xzd3O/DLwslWXaSFxjYmfBJxxzwCtP SPD8tihj1TsGTicMgko5Wh1IHkFvi6bG8niLvQmtA2P93Fj+hvMEhMuxla6AjOrJ neNFXoy1UCt6wZ9tfD1pzTkWQqn5iIejkn2OUKY3/okbZOTJJm8KkDuVN+ccG9Ra KJmBhmi4bvHFZFEJ4PLFAyRKZZcR6/yADG724574WZMdpRiDMbkZgye+FHbYdfeh 5J+eRmgQEvCZKle0JrqGxMOuLd2T52DTuldP2UEKCBvsCnjQ76gvZ64apx1S+d8K vDAJdesUOK8i7A46x/u/3Wr3EqtF7CzpcuQE0P7r8/hivOZ+ITsXJqJwG3yGdcyN AuWH+3tPn+VgOPcvyke6aFQI4UrkleVK7hjqx6XPZIEg4+Zlj4Jo2sB7wMdEkeiv H4tR49hYfSj1U6x8LpzoXog1AZmE//wsbriM6x5gS8gwslzaglYEGs3fYfqMoTrA F9YEXe8+9BlC6H8cZOdV =gPIe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--