2008/2/14, Willie Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:58:03AM +0100, Penguin Lover Henry Gebhardt > squawked: > > > > Holy shit, what's going on? The ebuild in the portage tree is different > than > > the one in /var/db/pkg/. Is it normal to update an ebuild but not its > > revision number? Here is the diff: > > > > ---snipped--- > > Damn, I spoke too soon. Just re-synced, and now this pops in the > Changelog for pam > > 10 Feb 2008; Diego Petten<C3><B2> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > pam-0.99.8.1-r1.ebuild, pam-0.99.9.0.ebuild: > Remove dependency over pwdb, pam_pwdb is no more present in PAM 0.99, > so the dependency was bogus. > > So, yeah, pwdb is not a dependency anymore and people can safely > remove it.
I agree. It seems that ebuilds do change quite frequently without a revision bump. I wrote a tiny script to see all changed ebuilds. I could'nt make it just one script, but had to make two: one for makeing the diff (ebuilddifff.sh), and one to search for the ebuilds and call the former script (findebuildiffs.sh). Just put them in the same directory, and run ./findebuildiffs.sh | less in case you are interested in what has changed. >From what I can see, it seems most changes are quite trivial and indeed not worth a revision bump. But sometimes, I am not so sure... For instances, glibc-2.7-r1 is now using a different patchset (version 1.6 instead of 1.4). Does anyone know what the policy is on changing ebuilds like that? ~Henry
findebuildiffs.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
ebuilddifff.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
