On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:04 +0200
Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 2015-09-16, o godz. 17:49:24
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > here's a quote from the Council 20140826 summary:
> >
> > > Dynamic dependencies in Portage
> > > ===============================
> > > During discussion, is was remarked that some changes, e.g. to
> > > dependencies in eclasses, could require mass rebuilds of packages.
> > >
> > > Vote:
> > > - "The council asks the Portage team to first outline their
> > > long-term plan regarding removal or replacement of dynamic
> > > dependencies, before they remove this feature. In particular,
> > > tree policies and the handling of eclasses and virtuals need to
> > > be clarified." Accepted unanimously.
> >
> > Since there seems to be interest in the Portage team to go ahead
> > with that plan, I'd like to ask about the tree policies and the
> > handling of eclasses and virtuals.
> >
> > I guess we'd appreciate this as a prerequisite for being able to
> > give the plan future council support.
>
> How about the usual 'common sense' policy? Assuming the developer
> understands the consequences of bumping and not bumping, and can see
> for himself if the latter breaks stuff (which would happen once
> portage finally changes the default behavior and makes failures
> non-random).
+1000
Moreover, as you said, it is included in the good old policy, which is
even a quizz question iirc:
1. You change a package's ebuild to install an init script.
Previously, the package had no init script at all.
Is a revision bump necessary? Why? What about when adding a
patch?
For virtuals, they are simply packages that install only VDB entries, so
the above applies too.
For eclasses, I think we all agree that it is better to store them in
VDB too (otherwise we can't remove them, ever), so again the above
applies.
Alexis.
