On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:05:17PM +0200, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 06:17 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 16:42 Sun 07 Nov     , Petteri R??ty wrote:
> >> On 11/06/2010 11:22 AM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I'm sending this patch for discussion, what it changes? The change is to 
> >>> where
> >>> the final clone of repository will be placed, it used to be 
> >>> ${WORKDIR}/${module}
> >>> (where module usually is the last component of source URI) to 
> >>> ${WORKDIR}/${P}
> >>> (essentially ${S}). This has few effects:
> >>>  - ebuilds using mercurial.eclass don't need to set S any longer
> >>>  - mercurial.eclass behaves more like git.eclass
> >>>  - it breaks all existing ebuilds using this eclass
> >>
> >> Which means that the doing the chance is not allowed as eclasses must
> >> remain backwards compatible.
> > 
> > Is that really still the case now that full environments have been saved 
> > for a number of years? Clearly breaking things is unacceptable, but I 
> > could envision someone simultaneously updating the eclass and all 
> > consumers.
> > 
> 
> There's no full environment saved before the package is installed and I
> don't see why we should break overlays.

I didn't think we had to care about overlays since they aren't the main
tree?  After all, how can we be sure what is happening in all overlays
out there?

I could see this, like Donnie says, if he wasn't going to fix all of the
ebuilds.  However I don't see a problem with it since he said he is
going to fix all of the ebuilds.

William

Attachment: pgprBsjRFY0m2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to