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 9B397138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EA4B21C023 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CB421C002 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:33:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (230.Red-2-137-43.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.43.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 771FC33D7D7 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] EAPI bump should require revbump From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <5082797E.5090803@gentoo.org> References: <50815B0B.7060705@gentoo.org> <20610.31099.278955.288479@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <5082797E.5090803@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ZqFciPlVXGEqmej21gig" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:33:45 +0200 Message-ID: <1350740025.12879.59.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: bf62f277-086f-4fd2-b112-b21ab8c1cdea X-Archives-Hash: 42fb08a87e0e7dd62000764b823ac59f --=-ZqFciPlVXGEqmej21gig Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El s=C3=A1b, 20-10-2012 a las 13:14 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribi=C3=B3: > 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 > > >=20 > +1. PM's that can't handle EAPI bump without revbump are broken in my= =20 > eyes. >=20 > If the content doesn't change, then revbumps are *annoying waste of CPU= =20 > cycles* >=20 > - Samuli >=20 >=20 +1 --=-ZqFciPlVXGEqmej21gig Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlCCqDkACgkQCaWpQKGI+9RZPgCfVoYxBX4qfKRS4DjfjffvwGfD BwAAnRQkNJT563V2SY/WcZaMMEbPB95u =K9D5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ZqFciPlVXGEqmej21gig--