| 1 |
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote: |
| 2 |
> The question is really simple. |
| 3 |
> Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place |
| 6 |
and we want to retain backwards compatibility for people who use old versions |
| 7 |
of portage. The whole point is to keep a sane upgrade path available |
| 8 |
indefinitely for people with old versions of portage. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Proponents are trying to prove that we should at least need it be in file |
| 11 |
> name. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We need the file name to change because otherwise old versions of portage will |
| 14 |
try to source the ebuild when the EAPI is unknown. This either blocks new |
| 15 |
useful features that will make old versions of portage fail to source them or |
| 16 |
results in more bug reports with zillions of dupes (like the bugs in [1]) |
| 17 |
because people with ancient versions of portage feel the need to report bug |
| 18 |
reports when portage fails after a sync. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At the very least it means waiting for a year between a release with a version |
| 21 |
of portage that supports this and an EAPI that takes advantage of it. So now |
| 22 |
that leaves the question whether we want to change the file name once and |
| 23 |
hope that we won't need to do it again or whether we want to use the |
| 24 |
technically more flexible way where the file name changes whenever a new EAPI |
| 25 |
gets agreed upon. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Or alternatively whether we want to limit ourselves by using an inferior |
| 28 |
solution that limits or delays progress considerably and results in more bug |
| 29 |
reports with zillions of dupes... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/common-problems.xml |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives