Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changes in installed ebuilds

[Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:40 +0200
Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:

> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed for
> >> an existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g.
> >> dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)?
> > 
> > Please see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91615
> 
> These blocks had nothing to do with the multilibs ABI. It has been
> just the updated versions for the dependencies.
> 
> >> I have to use an older Eclipse 3.8.x version for my daily work and
> >> since it is broken with latest gtk versions (a lot of crashes), I
> >> use still some old ebuilds and have masked new ones.
> > 
> > Please file a bug report about this. If nobody tells us that a new
> > gtk+ version broke something important, we will soon mark the new
> > version as stable and then remove the old version.

My understanding the problematic change is:

- -CDEPEND=">=dev-libs/expat-2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
- -       >=dev-libs/glib-2.26:2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
- -       >=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]"
+CDEPEND=">=dev-libs/expat-2.1.0-r3[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]  
+       >=dev-libs/glib-2.38.2-r1:2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
+       >=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.18-r1[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]"

given that only micro version was bumped for dbus and while glib
changes minor version, it's the same slot. Therefore my understanding
is the resulting libraries should not break API/ABI and therefore there
shouldn't be an issue.

In that case I think revbump is not warranted since it should continue
to work for existing installation and new installations shouldn't be
any different beside the dependency and not revbumping eliminates some
needless rebuilts.

And that seems to be the case since you say it's actually problem in
eclipse …

> I report anything, if it is worth it. However, in this case the
> problem is on Eclipse's side and fixed in newer versions. Alas, it
> does not help me, because I have to use that old version for my daily
> work. So, there's no blame on Gentoo and nothing the devs should have
> to waste their time.
> 
> Therefore I still use the once stable versions of GTK (~5 months old
> now), where this old version of Eclipse runs, i.e. I already
> preserved some older versions locally that are already vanished from
> the portage tree. The newer ones are hard masked.
> 
> However, if some of my currently installed stable packages suddenly
> require newer versions, my portage tree gets in serious trouble.
> Nothing would have happen if the revision number of the affected
> packages had been simply increased.

I guess you could fork the needed packages (you can always get older
versions from cvs) into your custom overlay for old eclipse and maintain
them there under some slot.

Caveat Emptor: I'm not particulary experienced with neither API/ABI
changes and slotting so I don't know how accurate this information is.


- --
Jan Matějka        | Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTqqNfAAoJEIN+7RD5ejah2J4H/0QOC7K1CYzF91HNbP6T3S/v
pl2vRF9JvOg5+SS/GzO7gqu8YPIF/GaViXPTWps7Ab6SqT0ARf3IPA0v6NCXymqf
vSUKMZDOVtBGq5mUjhiBTFZYFLtp0Nnj0lgv8ysv40ObzKvaT/Af7xGz67zm83pl
v0nr0gArH4oVVXFZg9w/22cw+0jLEaagLwS2SbgHsVgOfPBWHrIEMM46lk+DyEq6
wq1RMgMrFQ+QXHdO4zKM0+xLGahL3So05j7xlKmg4jIKlnlxXalYn3WY/ebrSoR3
uSuerahzlDo+qKR31Rldc/piurah7KnNoJSFa+Yny7upcueb0aWHbcPcZ9Js35o=
=ULrp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----