1 |
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 09/28/2013 03:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, heroxbd wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> I am revisiting this topic based on previous discussions[1,2,3]. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>>> There seems to be a constant need for toolchain with a new EAPI. The |
9 |
>>> only block is "how can we upgrade from an ancient system?", "don't |
10 |
>>> bump or the upgrade path will be break". Let's figure out a solid |
11 |
>>> upgrade path consciously, with a test farm of ancient systems, and |
12 |
>>> then bump the EAPI of toolchain. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> The upgrade path is not at all what is blocking this. In its 20130409 |
15 |
>> meeting, the council has (unanimously) decided: "EAPIs 0 to 2 are no |
16 |
>> longer required for the upgrade path of users' systems." |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> The reason why toolchain packages are still at EAPI 0 was explained in |
19 |
>> this posting: |
20 |
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2369/focus=2377 |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> AFAICS, changing that is entirely the task of the toolchain team. |
23 |
|
24 |
Thank you for the clarification, Ulrich. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Yes, it is entirely the task of the toolchain team, and looks like |
27 |
> heroxbd joined the toolchain team and would like to push the rest of his |
28 |
> team for this update. Something I greatly thank him for. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I don't think any dev wants to (or really could) force toolchain to |
31 |
> update individually, however, if motivated people want to join the team |
32 |
> and help, his question appeared to be will it be permitted to be |
33 |
> updated. |
34 |
|
35 |
Can't agree with you more. |
36 |
|
37 |
It's just a starting point, though. I still don't have a clear plan yet. |
38 |
|
39 |
After reading carefully the thread Ulrich pointed out, it seems that |
40 |
refactoring ebuild/eclass is invevitable, which calls for an overlay to |
41 |
carry it on. |
42 |
|
43 |
Benda |