Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-pms
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-pms@g.o
From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: EAPI 5
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:10:37 +0200
Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 11:16:25 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 11:01:57 +0200
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2012, 10:38:41 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > > > Well. PMS describes the files in a profile directory. If
> > > > * we introduce a new file via PMS that was not in there before,
> > > > * and another package manager accesses that file but expects
> > > > different information there not corresponding to our new
> > > > definition, that package manager should be considered broken
> > > > because it is not adhering to previous PMS revisions. So?
> > > 
> > > What happens if a user uses an EAPI 4 ebuild with an EAPI 4 package
> > > manager when the ebuild in question would be hit by your new files,
> > > which the package manager doesn't know about yet?
> > 
> > Err, nothing? The useflags remain available and switchable as before,
> > no difference regarding useflags between stable / not stable?
> What is the impact of this, then? Does it mean users will start to see
> lots of "masked" errors that they should not be seeing?


* the ebuild is <= EAPI 4
* the ebuild is listed in package.stable.use.(mask|force)

then it will be possible to enable/disable features in the stable variant that 
are not really deemed suitable for a "stable package" yet. All quality 
requirements from ~arch remain, meaning also the use flag combinations should 
lead to a successful build and a reasonably working package. Also, the stable 
ebuild will then eventually depend on non-stable packages, which is bad.

Thus, I would strongly recommend that this situation is treated as a blocker 
for stabilization (either upgrade EAPI or modify the package.stable.use.(mask|
force) entry so it does not apply to this ebuild).
Repoman could prevent such a commit.

It might make sense to go even further and write explicitly that 
package.stable.use.(mask|force) entries must not resolve to any <= EAPI 4 
ebuilds. Unfortunately there is no automatic repoman check during commits in 
the profile dirs which could prevent it.


Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 

Re: Re: EAPI 5
-- Andreas K. Huettel
Re: Re: EAPI 5
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: EAPI 5
Next by thread:
Re: Re: EAPI 5
Previous by date:
Re: Re: EAPI 5
Next by date:
Re: EAPI 5

Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.