Dnia 2015-09-16, o godz. 15:49:24 Rich Freeman <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As for virtuals and eclasses, I don't really understand why anyone > > thinks they are special in any regard. In both cases, we're talking > > about regular dependency change in metadata, and we need to understand > > the consequences. And they're going to be the same whether we change > > dep A to B, A to virtual, and whether we change it directly or via > > eclass. > > Sure, but a developer KNOWS when their RDEPENDS change when they're > modifying it directly in an ebuild. If they inherit an eclass and it > sets an RDEPEND and the eclass changes, then it effectively changes > the dependency for every ebuild that inherits it even though there > weren't any commits to any of those ebuilds. If you modify an eclass, you're responsible for the outcome. Even if means revbumping hundreds of ebuilds for the sake of it. Note that this is the kind of revbump that wouldn't require resetting stable keywords as long as deps are satisfied. > > 2. Dependency changes that don't need to apply immediately don't need > > revbump. For example, if foo.eclass raises minimal required version of > > a dependency but all packages built so far will work with the old one. > > > > Are we talking about a build dependency or a run-time dependency? I > don't get why we'd increase the minimal required version of a run-time > dependency if everything built so far still works with the old > version. Runtime. The minver can be raised for developer's convenience -- like when a large number of packages is expected to require a new version soon, and the developers would otherwise have to override the eclass- specified versions. Instead, the eclass is updated and new requirements apply. > Also, assuming that there is a case where this actually happens, does > this have any impact on running --depclean or any other obscure > blocker issues because the version in VDB is no longer in the tree? It shouldn't have. And if it would, the issues with the whole 'do stupid stuff and not bump' policy would be much worse. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpA3qwSJ91iD.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
