1 |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> "Drake Donahue" <donahue95@×××××××.net> posted |
3 |
> 414A2586925347C7BCFA0A784EC2A8FE@iwillxp333, excerpted below, on Mon, 24 |
4 |
> Nov 2008 12:19:04 -0500: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> The wisdom of making currently existing and useful packages depend on |
7 |
>> some future incomplete package management system (so that updates become |
8 |
>> arduous and/or impossible)?? Anyone discovered a way to cope with |
9 |
>> 'masked by eapx '? sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc15 did not relieve a 'masked |
10 |
>> by eap2' .... |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It should be 2.2_rc16, now. rc15 has a circular logic bug on unsolved |
13 |
> dependencies. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> But unless you happened to hit that bug, EAPI-2 should have worked, at |
16 |
> least for anything in-tree and at least ~arch unmasked. I'm not sure why |
17 |
> it wouldn't have and if it didn't it's certainly a bug, either in the |
18 |
> package or in portage. Of course, overlays are an entirely different |
19 |
> matter. In part, they are /intended/ to allow experimentation, and for |
20 |
> the more experimental overlays, all bets and all guarantees are off. See |
21 |
> below. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> But to answer your question, the EAPI restrictions work in stages, as |
24 |
> follows: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> (1) Overlays can use whatever weird features they want, including ones |
27 |
> only (for example) paludis supports, not portage at all. That's one of |
28 |
> the reasons they are there, to allow the testing of experimental features. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> (2) In ordered to be unmasked to ~arch in the tree, the features used |
31 |
> must be in a Gentoo council approved EAPI. The council has decided that |
32 |
> it will only approve an EAPI (E-API, e being the traditional Gentoo |
33 |
> prefix for package manager stuff and API having the traditional meaning) |
34 |
> once it is concretely defined such that all three package managers agree |
35 |
> on the definition, and when the official Gentoo PM, portage, supports it, |
36 |
> at the same ~arch level as the packages depending on that EAPI. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> (3) No package using a new EAPI can go stable until the official package |
39 |
> manager, portage, supports it in a stable version as well. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> If you are using overlay ebuilds, it's assumed you know how experimental |
42 |
> that overlay is allowed to be and that you are willing to run an equally |
43 |
> experimental package manager implementation of whatever features it |
44 |
> uses. Gentoo neither can nor does attempt to make guarantees at that |
45 |
> level. If you are using ~arch packages, there are limited guarantees |
46 |
> attempted, but as the express purpose of ~arch is to allow packages |
47 |
> intended for stable to be tested, but it's understood to be unstable and |
48 |
> thus there will be bugs from time to time. Again, if you choose to use |
49 |
> such packages, it's assumed you have your reasons and can manage to live |
50 |
> with the consequences of the bugs that will occur. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> If you don't like those terms, only use stable, but be prepared to live |
53 |
> with packages somewhat behind the times. In some cases, particularly |
54 |
> with new hardware or with software that just added a very popular new |
55 |
> feature, this will mean you'll simply do without support if you require |
56 |
> that hardware support or feature to use the package, until the package |
57 |
> works its way thru the system and is stabilized. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Personally, I default to ~arch, and unmask hard-masked packages either in- |
60 |
> tree or from various overlays from time to time as well. But in general, |
61 |
> I'm prepared for them to fail once in awhile, and to spend sometimes |
62 |
> significant time tracing and reporting bugs, then working around them or |
63 |
> rolling back to an earlier version without the bug, should I need the |
64 |
> bugged functionality. But YMMV definitely applies in this area, and |
65 |
> while I'd not be satisfied running what I'd consider long outdated |
66 |
> versions that may be the latest stable in many cases, other people may |
67 |
> prefer that stability even if it does mean being maybe a year behind at |
68 |
> times, possibly even more in some cases. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> -- |
71 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
72 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
73 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
74 |
> |
75 |
> |
76 |
> |