On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
> >> matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
> >> version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait until
> >> at least 6 months after supporting package managers have been
> >> available in stable.
> > So in your opinion, it would be fine to bump profiles/eapi to EAPI=4
> > now?
> Yes, it's feasible. As a consequence, we may get some complaints from
> users who haven't upgraded during the last six months.
Bit more than complaints; any system running a PM older than 6 months
or so (regardless of paludis/portage/pkgcore) will have to roll their
own profile to merge *anything*.
A pkg going to an unsupported eapi precludes the package from being
used; bumping the root profile node to 4 (or any node in the users
chain) means they /cannot use that profile/.
If people are seriously going to pull something this level of
heinous, at the very least plan it- it's a sizable enough breakage
other things could/should be shoved in (including giving people
To be absolutely clear, You bump the base to EAPI4, you're actively
making every system w/ a 6 month lag basically invalidated.
For reference of the actual eapi usage in the tree (pinspect
eapi_usage), is the following:
eapi: '0' 10629 pkgs found, 36.73% of the repository
eapi: '2' 7254 pkgs found, 25.07% of the repository
eapi: '3' 5315 pkgs found, 18.37% of the repository
eapi: '4' 5013 pkgs found, 17.32% of the repository
eapi: '1' 728 pkgs found, 2.52% of the repository
> For users like
> these, we could take a snapshot of the tree before the EAPI is bumped,
> and archive it so they can use it to update their package manager to a
> version that supports the new EAPI.
Target the profiles; no need to snapshot the whole tree unless the
plan is to bump 83% of the tree forward to EAPI4 shortly there
after (which is mildly rediculous in it's own anyways)...