Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilize ebuilds which use EAPIs only supported by ~arch PMs
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:23:43
Message-Id: 20081014181712.1a5ad3c7@sheridan.genone.homeip.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilize ebuilds which use EAPIs only supported by ~arch PMs by Jose Luis Rivero
1 On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:39 +0200
2 Jose Luis Rivero <yoswink@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 05:38:34PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
5 > > On 02:03 Tue 14 Oct , Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
6 > > >
7 > > > There are some others sceneries but are not so common as the one
8 > > > presented could be. Any decent solution for this case?
9 > >
10 > > There are only a few obvious ones, you'll have to pick which one
11 > > you like best. Most of the other options basically duplicate these
12 > > in some way or add more work to them for negligible gain:
13 > >
14 > > - Backport the ebuild from EAPI=2 to EAPI=0
15 >
16 > EAPI-2 to EAPI-0 could imply lot of changes (not talking about what is
17 > going to happen when we release new and more feature rich EAPIs), and
18 > changes usually come with bugs. The ebuild is committed directly to
19 > stable implies bugs in stable, which for me is a no-go.
20
21 Assuming the ebuild changes between foo-1 and foo-2 are mainly due to
22 the change from EAPI=0 to EAPI=2 (which I'd expect to be true in many
23 cases) you could just reuse the foo-1 ebuild for foo-3.
24
25 If there are major differences between foo-1 and foo-2 not related to
26 the EAPI change then the maintainer probably didn't want foo-2 to
27 become stable anytime soon, so it's at least questionable if foo-3
28 should go straight to stable in the first place.
29
30 And adding a new version directly to stable always comes with a risk,
31 you can't eliminate that completely. It's all about risk assessment,
32 and how much work you're willing to do or time you want to spend to
33 minimize the risk.
34
35 > > - Backport the security patch to the EAPI=0 ebuild
36 >
37 > Which sometimes is going to be impossible, require lot of work, and we
38 > fall into the risk of bad backported patches when non trivial backport
39 > patches are needed (which turns into buggy patches in the stable
40 > branch)
41
42 And sometimes it's a very viable option when patches are provided by
43 upstream.
44
45 In the end at least one of the above solutions should work in
46 almost every case. It might sometimes cause a bit more work than a bump
47 that doesn't involve any EAPI changes, but that's life.
48 If you have a real case where both suggested solutions aren't
49 realistic I'd like to hear about it, otherwise I think we're wasting
50 time making up solutions for a non-existant problem
51
52 Marius
53
54 --
55 Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
56
57 In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
58 Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies