On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:41:01 +0000
bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513882
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> ---
> The common procedure goes like this:
>
> 1) Put the new split-off library in the tree and make it block older
> versions of the ebuilds that use it "internally".
> 2) Put a new ebuild in the tree that depends on that library, and
> drop keywords on that ebuild that can't resolve the new dependency.
> 3) Ask for keywords to be restored for both the library and the new
> ebuild.
>
> This way people can test the new torque ebuild against the split-off
> library ebuild. And you don't need to wait at all to put the new
> torque ebuild in the tree.
I keep wondering why I need to remind people how this works dozens of
times a year. Should we document this better somewhere?
devmanual[1] has simply this:
"Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new
unresolved dependencies. If you do this, you must file a bug
notifying the relevant arch teams."
and it seems that is not enough since people needlessly wait for the
KEYWORDREQ to be resolved before they do anything.
jer
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
