List Archive: gentoo-pms
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Wednesday 27 of April 2011 19:46:21 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:40:47 +0200
> Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@...> wrote:
> > I'd say using "in some ancient portage" argument all over again to
> > reinforce particular point of view is not valid.
> Uh, no, that's the entire point of EAPIs.
This is a common misconception.
The entire and only point of EAPI is to provide ebuild API - for ebuild
developers and for package manager developers.
From user point of view - user is required to update package manager (it's the
case with portage anyway) to the latest supported version and package manager
itself (along with package tree) needs to support such migration path (of
course within reasonable timespan - there is catch whether pre-EAPI-2 support
is reasonable, python eclass problem).
From ebuild developer point of view - EAPI specification should provide all
knowledge required to create ebuilds along with detailed and unambiguous
description of what to expect from package manager that is compliant with said
EAPI. Old package managers and their expected behaviour is irrelevant as soon
as migration path to recent version exists for them. That being said this
argument blocking the update of specification because of the hypothetical
existence of unsupported package manager instances (like ancient
portage/paludis/pkgcore versions) is invalid.
From package manager developer point of view - EAPI specification should
provide all knowledge required to build own package manager compliant with
said EAPI, describing its *intended* (and of course being in effect, not just
intended) behaviour in detailed and unambiguous way. And here again, old
package managers and their provided behaviour is irrelevant as soon as
migration path exists for them.
Since intended behaviour for normal vs strong blocks is like Ulrich specified,
and migration path to the most recent from first portage supporting EAPI-2
exists - argument to block specification update is invalid.
EAPI specification is not "what used to be", it's "what is and what can be
relied upon", it's that simple.
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)