1 |
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> posted |
3 |
> 5bdc1c8b0811231435y2eea1b1by366c787c983c1089@××××××××××.com, excerpted |
4 |
> below, on Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:35:42 -0800: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> The root cause of this is I wanted to emerge the newest version of |
7 |
>> Ardour from the pro-audio overlay and ran into a new message about it |
8 |
>> being masked by something called EAPI 2 which according to the message |
9 |
>> requires a 'newer' version of portage. (No revision given.) That's all |
10 |
>> this was about, and there's absoutely no rush to fix it as I'm not |
11 |
>> likely to really use Ardour. Just wanted to take a look at what sort of |
12 |
>> headway they are making with their feature set so it's really nothing |
13 |
>> but pure curiosity. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> OK. FWIW, for EAPI-2, you need the new ~arch portage-2.2-rcX series. |
16 |
> EAPI-2 is allowed in various overlays and now in ~arch, but not in stable |
17 |
> until a stable portage supports it. It'll bring a number of new features |
18 |
> including full set support, per-package use-defaults (previously a USE |
19 |
> flag could be defaulted to on per profile, but not per package, off being |
20 |
> the unset default, of course), and IIRC use dependencies (if a package |
21 |
> requires say C++ support and gcc has been built without it, it must now |
22 |
> die with an error message telling the user to make the change, with use- |
23 |
> deps, it could force gcc to be recompiled with C++ instead of dying, thus |
24 |
> avoiding somebody leaving a 200-package emerge going overnight, only to |
25 |
> come back the next day to find out it stopped with package #2 due to a |
26 |
> USE dependency death). |
27 |
> |
28 |
> So there are some nice things coming in EAPI-2 and a number of packages |
29 |
> can really use them. But an EAPI-2 supporting portage, while now in the |
30 |
> tree, remains unstable, as there are still a few bugs to work out before |
31 |
> it goes fully stable. So if you prefer a stable portage, you'll have to |
32 |
> wait for EAPI-2, and any packages requiring it (which by definition can't |
33 |
> be stabilized until an EAPI-2 portage is stable too). |
34 |
> |
35 |
> -- |
36 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
37 |
|
38 |
Thanks Duncan. I basically understand the portage stuff, in the sense |
39 |
that it's a new feature. I read a few eamils form the portage |
40 |
developers, etc., and got a sense of some of what it is supposed to |
41 |
do. that part I'm OK with, as I am, I guess, with the idea that |
42 |
someone who wrote the Ardour ebuild is requiring these new features. |
43 |
|
44 |
My real question is what is required to build that portage on an |
45 |
~amd64 machine so that I can build Ardour? Is anyone on this list |
46 |
using portage-2.2.x? If so how did they get it to build? |
47 |
|
48 |
Thanks, |
49 |
Mark |