1 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
2 |
> What about the case where the new EAPI breaks backwards compatibility |
3 |
> with existing package managers, as would be the case with glep 55? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Its quite true that such changes can be introduced after a wait and |
6 |
> only upset late adoptors. By implementing the key feature of glep 55, |
7 |
> which is making the EAPI known to the PM without sourcing the ebuild, |
8 |
> we would only need one last wait to introduce new features in this |
9 |
> way in later EAPIs.PMs would then know the EAPI in advance and ignore |
10 |
> ebuilds using EAPIs they don't understand. |
11 |
|
12 |
But still then the special case I mentioned comes in. Newer version |
13 |
migrated to newer EAPI. Urgent bump for security reasons is necessary. |
14 |
Backporting the ebuild is necessary. Not that likely, but iirc we had |
15 |
that special case for EAPI-2. |
16 |
|
17 |
Putting in a wait for 4 or 8 weeks or whatever doesn't cost us anything |
18 |
but does simplify things and gives us a clear deployment process. |
19 |
|
20 |
I do know we have developers with nil interest in our stable branch, but |
21 |
we also have users heavily relying on our stable branch. |
22 |
|
23 |
Tobias |