On 2011.01.02 16:02, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 05:19 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > One way we could drop EAPI 0 would be if we do a major review of
> tree
> > and repo formats to improve upgrade paths, which would however
> likely
> > require breaking backwards compatibility at such point.
> > I believe such a change would only be acceptable, if we would pack
> > enough features and safety measures that it would ensure another
> break
> > would not need to be done for a long time.
> > 
> 
> It's quite likely that if you are currently on a system with Portage
> that does not understand EAPI 1 there's so many obstacles along the
> upgrade path that a clean install makes more sense. Maybe someone is
> willing to test this so that we actually know if there is an upgrade
> path from EAPI 0 available any more.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 
> 

There is an upgrade path from a pure EAPI0 system but it starts with a 
visit to the tinderbox as portage and python block one another.

Some other interesting things along the way:- 
You need to incrementally update gcc and glibc as there is some 
mutual blockage there too.
libpng-1.2, xorg and libexpat too if the box is old enough. How far do 
you want to go back? 

Its a very educational experience but a reinstall is faster.
The real killer is that some core system packages need EAPI>0 to build.

Personally, I don't regard tinderbox as any part of any officially 
supported upgrade path.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees