[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    [gentoo-dev] Re: [Bug 513882] dev-libs/uthash keyword request
From:       Jeroen Roovers <jer () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-06-27 14:46:58
Message-ID: 20140627164658.16113905 () marga ! jer-c2 ! orkz ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:41:01 +0000
bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org wrote:

> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513882
> 
> --- Comment #6 from Jeroen Roovers <jer@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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]