On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> Proposal 3a might be: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, the >>> eclass must be revisioned unless all ebuilds in the gentoo repository >>> will continue to work correctly with the old RDEPEND. >>> Proposal 4a might be: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, all >>> ebuilds that inherit the eclass in the gentoo repository must be >>> revisioned if they will not continue to work correctly with the old >>> RDEPEND. >> >> Adding an || alternative should be included here: >> The installed package would continue to work without that alternative, >> but without a revbump the user is not able to see that he might >> possibly drop a package. >> > > Perhaps add "or if the new RDEPEND allows the ebuild to work with > additional dependencies." Or maybe just straight out say "or if > additional || atoms are added." The first wording might allow for > additional cases, which is probably good. >
So, here is a consolidated list of the latest proposals: RDEPEND changes directly in ebuilds (non-virtual and virtual) Proposal 5: Anytime an RDEPEND in an ebuild is changed, the ebuild must be revisioned. This includes adding/removing inherited eclasses which set RDEPENDs. RDEPEND changes in eclasses Proposal 3b: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, the eclass must be revisioned unless: 1. all ebuilds in the gentoo repository will continue to work correctly with the old RDEPEND, 2. and the new RDEPEND is a subset of the old RDEPEND Proposal 4b: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, all ebuilds that inherit the eclass in the gentoo repository must be revisioned unless: 1. all ebuilds in the gentoo repository will continue to work correctly with the old RDEPEND, 2. and the new RDEPEND is a subset of the old RDEPEND. >From the tone of discussion the wording of the eclass proposals still might be a bit conservative, and there may be other cases where we could avoid bumps. However, I think this does cover the examples that actually came up. Here are ones that i consider outdated: RDEPEND changes directly in ebuilds Proposal 1: Anytime an RDEPEND in a non-virtual ebuild is changed, the ebuild must be revisioned. This includes adding/removing inherited eclasses which set RDEPENDs. RDEPEND changes directly in virtuals Proposal 2: Anytime an RDEPEND in a virtual ebuild is changed, the ebuild must be revisioned. This includes adding/removing inherited eclasses which set RDEPENDs. RDEPEND changes in eclasses Proposal 3: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, the eclass must be revisioned. Proposal 4: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, all ebuilds that inherit the eclass in the gentoo repository must be revisioned. Proposal 3a: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, the eclass must be revisioned unless all ebuilds in the gentoo repository will continue to work correctly with the old RDEPEND. Proposal 4a: Anytime an RDEPEND in an eclass is changed, all ebuilds that inherit the eclass in the gentoo repository must be revisioned if they will not continue to work correctly with the old RDEPEND. -- Rich
