Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: antarus@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:02:10
Message-Id: 20110920220330.560f74a2@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem by Alec Warner
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:48:37 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> > wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, "Patrick Lauer" <patrick@g.o> wrote: > >> Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd > >> need a helper script to figure out your current state (using > >> portage version and tree snapshot maybe), then prepare the > >> environment to upgrade (and how do you handle the "common" case of > >> python 2.5 only which doesn't allow newest portage anyway?) > >> > > > > Does it really need to be automated?  Why not just have a big howto > > that we append to whenever we break @system upgrades?  The top > > would have a table telling you where to start based on portage > > version or whatever. > > > > The howto would contain links to portage and bindist snapshots > > (just what you need to upgrade - maybe binary pkgs, maybe not). > > Then it would have a list of steps to follow. > > > > If you are three years out of date it would be a long journey, but > > it should work. I don't think we need to make it a trivial upgrade, > > just a workable one. > > Why should we put effort into supporting people running a system based > off of a three year old tree?
Probably because we don't want to get the 'immature, non-caring, non-upgradeable' distro sticker. -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

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