Re: [gentoo-project] EAPI bump should require revbump

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1346 bytes --]

El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 13:14 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 20/10/12 13:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all -- there was just a discussion in #gentoo-dev about this, so
> >> following up here..
> >
> >> Due to the fact that an EAPI-bump can imply different behaviour from
> >> eclasses or the PM, an EAPI-bump should in most cases also require an
> >> ebuild revbump.
> >
> >> Why i'm bringing this up here, is because Chansaw and I were wondering
> >> if common sense will not be enough to ensure this and it should be
> >> made a policy to revbump when migrating to a new EAPI ?
> >
> > So far the guideline was that a revbump isn't required if the files
> > installed by the ebuild don't change, or if there are only trivial
> > changes that don't affect functionality (like files going to
> > /usr/share/doc).
> >
> > I don't see why EAPI bumps should be handled differently from other
> > changes to the ebuild. If the installed files don't change, why would
> > one impose upon the user to recompile the package?
> >
> > Ulrich
> >
> 
> +1.   PM's that can't handle EAPI bump without revbump are broken in my 
> eyes.
> 
> If the content doesn't change, then revbumps are *annoying waste of CPU 
> cycles*
> 
> - Samuli
> 
> 

+1

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]