On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:16:25 +0100 Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 06:46 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > On May 20, autools.eclass was changed to no longer inherit eutils, > > see > > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/eclass/autotools.eclass?r1=1.133&r2=1.134 > > > > > > > Relying on autotools.eclass for your eutils needs was always a > > terrible idea, but a few ebuilds did it anyway. Those ebuilds are > > now *broken* since they can no longer use epatch. See bug #416847 > > for an example. > > > > Check your ebuilds to make sure you inherit eutils in anything > > that uses epatch! > > > > -Alexandre Rostovtsev. > > > > > Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing. > First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then > remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out > of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to > justify the significant breakage of portage tree. First of all, to quote devmanual: | Before updating eutils or a similar widely used eclass, it is best to | email the gentoo-dev list. It may be that your proposed change is | broken in a way you had not anticipated> [...]. If you don't email | gentoo-dev first, and end up breaking something, expect to be in a | lot of trouble. Not that this disrespect for this rule is something new... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
