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 B3D1E1381F3 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0230AE09A2; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:34:40 +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 33E3FE0966 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:34:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-5d8233c4.pool.mediaWays.net [93.130.51.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60A2233DA03 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51E70DEC.3060506@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:34:36 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130630 Thunderbird/17.0.7 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> <51E70C8B.9050808@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51E70C8B.9050808@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 884cbb94-9402-484c-9dac-cdf63e89efc4 X-Archives-Hash: 332cd8257cc6a90e38fe0aefea423396 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/17/2013 11:28 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > 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. > It doesn't matter in the slightest whos fault it is or who should be blamed. It is about maintaining stability for the user. Especially when it comes to stable ebuilds. That means the methods for eclass changes must be more thoroughly. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR5w3sAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzPLEH/jXlCgVFOFT2lj3OPxjE8E7o 6IFEPMFUwlEvWHGnCXG2Go8f9UEUxinvzfE6x0K8IT2NrffBbTjDvM1n/aJmNMkf 89pLjCqsra6iM4WJhIGxoXq/lIJcoJ3dJkxMS6kz7U0VWeH2wTAY0pQ/qIlJ3e30 XHcXhQZP9LzD1GEA43v0bO9FRYuh/zjJpzNVGHsj3jUmijQsglYyMSN8YGS4vBbe y5gCHZcsjMOWkRlzUsCd0qn3EF6WgUzs9Ty7MreRDoI4pfvxcVu0PrhcrciLOCzx 2OHylKFU6btOJpUrjYJbUss+53jfPWLvo8AThz/I6ClItJxGjNsrDukpdtXXH6A= =Tc2N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----