From: Willie Wong <wwong@Princeton.EDU>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 'emerge -e world' question
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:18:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090114001812.GA28277@princeton.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <496D29D6.7030004@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:55:02AM +0100, Penguin Lover b.n. squawked:
> It's 4 years I'm using Gentoo and I can still be surprised by it. :)
> This doesn't look right. Why do devs upgrade ebuilds and do not increase
> the -rX versioning?
Look at the Gentoo Developer Handbook
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1
Specifically the section on "Versioning and revision bumps". I quote:
"If you make an internal, stylistic change to the ebuild that does
not change any of the installed files, then there is no need to bump
the revision number. Likewise, if you fix a compilation problem in
the ebuild that was affecting some users, there is no need to bump
the revision number, since those for whom it worked perfectly would
see no benefit in installing a new revision, and those who
experienced the problem do not have the package installed (since
compilation failed) and thus have no need for the new revision number
to force an upgrade. A revision bump is also not necessary if a
minority of users will be affected and the package has a nontrivial
average compilation time; use your best judgement in these
circumstances. "
The changes made to OpenOffice in this case are minor (example: a
virtual is added for some perl package, and the dependency is changed
from depending on the explicit package to the virtual), and should not
effect already working installations; furthermore, considering how
much memory and time one needs to compile OpenOffice, I say the gentoo
policy is quite sane about not forcing a revision bump.
W
--
The police recently arrested a man selling "secret formula" tablets he claimed
gave eternal youth. When going through their files they noticed it was the
fifth time he was caught for committing this same criminal medical fraud. He
had earlier bookings from 1794, 1856, 1928 and 1983....
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 767 days, 22:53
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-14 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-13 15:44 [gentoo-user] 'emerge -e world' question Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 15:47 ` [gentoo-user] " Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 23:55 ` b.n.
2009-01-14 0:05 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-14 0:18 ` Willie Wong [this message]
2009-01-14 0:26 ` »Q«
2009-01-13 15:52 ` [gentoo-user] " Alan McKinnon
2009-01-13 16:02 ` Mike Kazantsev
2009-01-13 16:25 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 16:41 ` Albert Hopkins
2009-01-13 16:20 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 16:37 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 16:38 ` Willie Wong
2009-01-13 16:57 ` Willie Wong
2009-01-13 17:10 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 17:27 ` Willie Wong
2009-01-13 17:45 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 16:02 ` Albert Hopkins
2009-01-13 20:28 ` Dale
2009-01-13 20:37 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 21:02 ` Dale
2009-01-13 21:18 ` Paul Hartman
2009-01-13 21:20 ` Neil Bothwick
2009-01-13 22:26 ` Dale
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=20090114001812.GA28277@princeton.edu \
--to=wwong@princeton.edu \
--cc=gentoo-user@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