On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:24 -0700 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:55:29 +0200 > > "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As discussed in bug #222721, portage has changed the execution > > > order of phases. It seems the change was introduced in > > > portage-2.1.5 and it makes that, when upgrading a package, > > > pkg_postinst is run after the old version has been removed. This > > > breaks packages which use has_version in pkg_postinst to detect > > > upgrades/downgrades. It can also break packages in more subtle > > > ways. > > > > Given that the number of affected ebuilds is so high, I'd say > > Portage should have to revert the changes... > > Of course, you would. What else would we expect from you? > > > This is an EAPI scope change, if anything. Although even then the > > implications are a bit messy since you're talking the interaction of > > two different EAPIs. > > It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change. That's > not very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time > since PMS was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0 > or EAPI=1 (or PMS, for that matter). What we have gotten is a > half-assed "you can use EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated > features" from the Council, but that's nothing like acceptance of a > spec. Perhaps if you spent a little more time doing something more > constructive than being an asshat on the lists, PMS would have been > approved long ago. Of course, that doesn't mesh well with your > apparent need to be a complete dick to people, so continue on with > the status quo. I don't want to start yet another hundred post thread here[i], but our etiquette policy applies to everyone here, and I would have hoped that as a senior developer you could at least try to take the high road and set an example. I know this is hypocritical coming from someone who recently called you a giant flaming asshole, but I've been trying hard since to be more civil because I realize that kind of behaviour is unacceptable and nonconstructive (and again I apologize). I'm not picking you out here, this applies to all of us (you too Ciaran). I mean c'mon, let's quit the bitching and get shit done already. [i] IOW don't reply to this mail please :P -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
