| 1 |
Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 11:16:25 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 11:01:57 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 10:38:41 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 6 |
> > > > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If |
| 7 |
> > > > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before, |
| 8 |
> > > > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects |
| 9 |
> > > > different information there not corresponding to our new |
| 10 |
> > > > definition, that package manager should be considered broken |
| 11 |
> > > > because it is not adhering to previous PMS revisions. So? |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package |
| 14 |
> > > manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files, |
| 15 |
> > > which the package manager doesn't know about yet? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Err, nothing? The useflags remain available and switchable as before, |
| 18 |
> > no difference regarding useflags between stable / not stable? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> What is the impact of this, then? Does it mean users will start to see |
| 21 |
> lots of "masked" errors that they should not be seeing? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
* the ebuild is <= EAPI 4 |
| 26 |
* the ebuild is listed in package.stable.use.(mask|force) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
then it will be possible to enable/disable features in the stable variant that |
| 29 |
are not really deemed suitable for a "stable package" yet. All quality |
| 30 |
requirements from ~arch remain, meaning also the use flag combinations should |
| 31 |
lead to a successful build and a reasonably working package. Also, the stable |
| 32 |
ebuild will then eventually depend on non-stable packages, which is bad. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Thus, I would strongly recommend that this situation is treated as a blocker |
| 35 |
for stabilization (either upgrade EAPI or modify the package.stable.use.(mask| |
| 36 |
force) entry so it does not apply to this ebuild). |
| 37 |
Repoman could prevent such a commit. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
It might make sense to go even further and write explicitly that |
| 40 |
package.stable.use.(mask|force) entries must not resolve to any <= EAPI 4 |
| 41 |
ebuilds. Unfortunately there is no automatic repoman check during commits in |
| 42 |
the profile dirs which could prevent it. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 48 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 49 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 50 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives