From: "Jörg Schaible" <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Changes in installed ebuilds
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:46:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <lofjff$aem$2@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 53A9ED2D.70002@gentoo.org
hasufell wrote:
> Jörg Schaible:
>> 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'm not sure if you understood the bug. It was breaking dependency
> calculation of portage, so the fallout you see is minor to what was
> going on.
The dependency calculation worked perfectly, it just could not resolve them
anymore, because those suddenly required newer packages are hard masked on
my system to keep the software *I* need for my daily work running.
> Revbumping and restabilizing all of these packages (a LOT) would have
> been unrealistic.
And the question was, why was the version for these deps upgraded in those
ebuild at all. The official tree did not contain anything older anyway.
> Another possibility would have been to revbump the ebuild and make it
> instantly stable without arch teams involvement. That would actually be
> the cleaner way, but afair some people don't agree with that, so it
> isn't standard practice.
>
> However, you can still overwrite tree ebuilds in your local overlay and
> revert dependencies. I once did that with pypy, because it triggered too
> many rebuilds for me.
That's what I did in the end for all "bumped" ebuilds, but the effort would
not have been necessary at all.
- Jörg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-25 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-23 20:15 [gentoo-dev] Changes in installed ebuilds Jörg Schaible
2014-06-23 23:14 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2014-06-24 0:49 ` [gentoo-dev] " Alexandre Rostovtsev
2014-06-24 19:25 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jörg Schaible
2014-06-24 20:47 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2014-06-24 21:15 ` hasufell
2014-06-25 22:48 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jörg Schaible
2014-06-26 7:13 ` Michał Górny
2014-06-26 22:04 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jörg Schaible
2014-06-24 21:27 ` [gentoo-dev] " hasufell
2014-06-25 22:46 ` Jörg Schaible [this message]
2014-06-25 10:24 ` Jan Matejka
2014-06-25 22:42 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jörg Schaible
2014-06-25 23:31 ` Alex Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='lofjff$aem$2@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=joerg.schaible@gmx.de \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox