From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC1E1381F3 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C99FE08E8; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:28:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 459FCE08CA for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (wsip-72-214-40-180.dc.dc.cox.net [72.214.40.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zerochaos) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA2E733E60F for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51E70C8B.9050808@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:28:43 -0400 From: "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130524 Thunderbird/17.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass and bug 475502 References: <51E7051C.1070401@gentoo.org> <51E709F5.8020802@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51E709F5.8020802@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 475bf639-1933-47db-be61-2bc61e0ce6ef X-Archives-Hash: 5c280de60b6b6cb15d5c189f5f1db0ec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/17/2013 05:17 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: > On 07/17/2013 04:57 PM, hasufell wrote: >> I know there was an announcement about the upcoming change to >> cmake-utils.eclass, however... it is not enough to give a deadline >> without caring if people actually fixed it by then. > >> By doing that you risk breaking stable packages which is not >> trivial. > >> You _must_ do a tinderbox run, test that stuff in an overlay or >> whatever. You are responsible for ALL reverse deps. > >> The way it was done... was not appropriate. Please be more careful >> next time. There are still incoming bugs about broken base_src_* >> calls. (see the tracker) > > > I discussed this with hasufell on IRC, but I'll lay out the response > on the list too. Yes, this was my fault. We (KDE team) tested in our > overlay, but none of the packages there use the base_src_* calls, > which is why it didn't come up in testing, and I did not realize that > there were packages that did rely on the implicit base inherit to call > base_src_* directly. ...and that is why it isn't permitted to directly use an eclass that you don't inherit. While I agree testing could (should) have been better, the fact that people ignore the rules for writing ebuilds shouldn't entirely fall on the KDE team. - -Zero -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5wyLAAoJEKXdFCfdEflK0LsP/3nXF+sRXcrRBmkysF7mLGjP 7iJ9Wwh2VkJyPihYxvG1O7YQkoMr+ohiQvMg6a0SbK6CPzND6Wu2d80r9/5DUUOx NUqvtbX+SdNIj/VgoYC4aDuS6ln+3BDENR5JT90jfs1v7HNh1G/bSA78ppj1cDS7 Hsnym7pQxRYLnQuDbitVeFKp2UHBchXAkoaW8QJ/pf4FQwiXX0JXmOdt+ogCICGC W6YP4fbt4zv4zKpt3AFD9jKXle4wcCoAXjixOIfdWSURy+BFWGDJXOKuPsqaXFki U4qlbOI6xrf7l5ApmjZOndfarqGiwSfxV3qOLKglyHQp3I63FXfAqiVvH6uz8g2L YVXqZ7BrkZKMADfR+Ha8nHbyW0CX0Z4iK62P/BPH4aLfLPzJKZa6804++a2i7Vx/ 0EfB4rSSYC6IAMWhSxCJD5SL0q1MBefNAGFttVO5gGMUbyoIZ2YGd4fNW6bLFffu Ca3twnU5yvvjn9auofWsh6Mji6U76L4xcVN/SUSI4ASC1q0GtPs6BbHI+WY4mo40 lYJUe3wXK3LgUfdDcrw9LennsO71lE96OuM1dhwxqrnIexAyKKIBMQtzIzYekBJx Q3D6s3sCtxgOOhbDpWFp1rEohmHLY6SJzbMW9+BbN6+rEqZw0o11DYivOfiwSwso wgRZQ55XSKzpZVPdifhp =q7zW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----