From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KdntT-0002pQ-G4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:15:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01A5EE0499; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.185]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D45E0499 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m36so344344rnd.14 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:15:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=Xyk+dINHnd/TTGJVRA7XSpugC0VJx228TJ8GuHo4S8Y=; b=qUMSzNeQQAIoE1AH/r80K5wo97fbF+2Cc1VKO/UE/aIXxVrO+hIRTBEB4trTvJ167r o9FpPlZ+t+7Zensspi4+B+RO9DRKESGFRsE1fDWB6Jwb0f92A/vooD7iOP/p+kJq6GWp 2J7uTJgCONtNmh6YaXkMZ9hzIYjWAN27y8LMo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=k1O7nGwxq/zhUoQnb6XXtbZRrWMYavMiWIqdlrViTcq2OpjlG/n3mJemvrRKQidZwm jyGiTotpd/WQOIogxccG6q7rqopdWHwgnX7piB36tZgqBEoDvMkn+vBCi6YS37rjrxxc 1OlsNBD24bqfn2vMfvO4dZDk+7UkUk0+kHdM4= Received: by 10.90.90.4 with SMTP id n4mr3445599agb.43.1221146136817; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.49.6 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3c32af40809110815o772f83cfp5201e9e8c219be53@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:15:36 +0200 From: "Santiago M. Mola" Sender: cooldwind@gmail.com To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for September In-Reply-To: <200809111656.01247.rbu@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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080910070325.2FA09B4AC1@smtp.gentoo.org> <48C8BE2A.60508@gentoo.org> <20080911144002.42c683df@googlemail.com> <200809111656.01247.rbu@gentoo.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 03aee936f848e454 X-Archives-Salt: e11c1849-2b8e-41bb-9582-425223262494 X-Archives-Hash: 24dba43b0e61b3e2308ee4075b03e16e On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Robert Buchholz wrote: > On Thursday 11 September 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:43:54 -0700 >> >> Zac Medico wrote: >> > [2] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/eapi/eapi-2-draft.html >> >> By table 6.11, are you implying that you consider the new pkg_ phase >> order to be part of EAPI 2? >> >> Really, Portage needs to revert the order and go back to the way it >> used to be for all EAPIs. The change breaks lots of existing ebuilds >> (you claim you've probably fixed everything in ::gentoo, but you >> don't know that and you've definitely not fixed overlays), including >> ebuilds using a common documented technique recommended by the >> devmanual. >> >> If you want the new pkg_* ordering to go through at all, it really >> needs a lengthy discussion on its own and it mustn't apply to any >> action that involves any existing EAPI. >> >> I'd like the Council to say that for anything involving EAPIs 0, 1 or >> 2 we stick to the pkg_* phase ordering we've used years. > > What is the change of order you witnessed in table 6.11 of the draft? > Comparing that to the PMS on [3], the order looks identical to me > (except for the two new phases). Am I missing something? > > > Robert > > [3] http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms.pdf Section 10.2 > Previously, the order was different for upgrading/downgrading packages. You can see a summary of the problem in bug #235020 [1]. I sent a note to @-dev [2] with a list of all packages *in the tree* which were affected by the most common problem of the order change (using has_version in pkg_postinst), all of them were quickly fixed by Zac. But there may be more packages affected not included there. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27feec8fc563e406b174386d24c39fdc.xml Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: cooldwind@gmail.com