1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<guide self="general-concepts/ebuild-revisions/">
<chapter>
<title>Ebuild revisions</title>
<body>
<p>
Ebuilds may have a Gentoo revision number associated with them. This is a
<c>-rX</c> suffix, where <c>X</c> is an integer <d/> see
<uri link="::ebuild-writing/file-format/#File naming rules"/>.
This component must only be used for Gentoo changes, not upstream releases.
An ebuild with no explicit revision number has the implicit <c>-r0</c>
revision.
</p>
<p>Ebuild revisions usually serve two purposes:</p>
<ol>
<li>
keeping an older copy of an ebuild around when doing a potentially
breaking change, and
</li>
<li>
propagating the rebuild of a package when performing a meaningful
change that would otherwise go unnoticed by users who have installed
the current version already.
</li>
</ol>
<p>
Developers are encouraged to use common sense when determining
whether to introduce a new <c>-rX</c> revision. The following rules
of thumb could be used as a guideline:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
If the change can cause the package to be broken to the point
of requiring users to revert to the previous version, then a new
revision should be introduced and the old one kept.
For any such revision bump, the new ebuild should be based
on the previous revision to ensure that fixes aren't dropped
accidentally.
</li>
<li>
If the package has stable keywords, then a new revision should be
introduced for every non-trivial change, and its keywords should be dropped
to <c>~arch</c> (see <uri link="::keywording/#Keywording on upgrades"/>).
The general guideline here is conservatism and the need to minimize
the risk of accidental breakage for stable users.
</li>
<li>
If the change makes a substantial difference to the user who already
installed the package (fixes runtime issues, changes installed files,
etc.) and it would not be propagated using other means, then
the ebuild should be renamed to a new revision. If the package has
stable keywords, they should be moved to the new revision without
dropping. To commit the ebuild, <c>pkgdev commit</c> or <c>git
commit</c> paired with <c>pkgcheck scan --commits</c> should be used).
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, the change can be done in place in the current revision
of the ebuild.
</li>
</ol>
<p>Examples of changes that warrant a new revision are:</p>
<ul>
<li>adding a patch to fix a runtime issue,</li>
<li>installing additional files that could be useful to the user,</li>
<li>adding a missing runtime dependency to one of the existing blocks,</li>
<li>adding a binding subslot operator (:=) to a dependency,</li>
<li>updating a dependency with default on/off USE flags,</li>
<li>fixing an automagic dependency detection from a build system,</li>
<li>
restricting a runtime dependency version, unless the <c>:=</c>
subslot operator is going to trigger a rebuild,
</li>
<li>
updating the license, if any of the affected licenses is either non-free or
is about to be removed,
</li>
<li>
changing the EAPI (unless changes to the ebuild are trivial, and you can be
sure it won't break stable or reverse dependencies).
</li>
</ul>
<p>Examples of changes that can be done without a revision bump are:</p>
<ul>
<li>
adding a patch to fix a build-time issue that prevented users from
building the package (since it does not affect users who already
managed to build it) unless: it affected runtime behaviour in some way
(e.g. <c>-Wformat</c> or <c>-Wimplicit-function-declaration</c> fixes);
the package may have been miscompiled, or the change is substantial
(if adding a huge patch to fix a problem, the chances of an unexpected
issue being introduced by it are greater).
</li>
<li>adding a trivial documentation fix,</li>
<li>
installing an additional file of relatively little value (minor
documentation, editor syntax file, bash completion) compared
to the cost of rebuilding the package (especially if a new bump
is expected soon),
</li>
<li>
adding a missing build-time dependency that caused a build failure
(unless it is also a runtime dependency),
</li>
<li>
adding a new USE flag if it controls a USE-dependency where the
functionality was hard-disabled in the build system before,
</li>
<li>
removing an existing USE flag if it controls a USE-dependency where the
functionality is now disabled entirely, rather than always being enabled
(since the change in USE flags is going to trigger a <c>--changed-use</c>
rebuild),
</li>
<li>
a trivial stylistic / ebuild code change (as long as the new code
is equivalent to the old code),
</li>
<li>
a dependency change that is a result of a package move (slot move),
</li>
</ul>
</body>
</chapter>
</guide>
|
GitWeb