Gentoo Archives: gentoo-catalyst

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
To: gentoo-catalyst@l.g.o
Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-catalyst] [PATCH 2/8] doc: Drop pre-EAPI-5 text
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 06:10:23
Message-Id: 20200515061001.2581484-2-mattst88@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-catalyst] [PATCH 1/8] doc: Remove extra asterisk by Matt Turner
1 There are very few EAPI < 5 ebuilds left.
2
3 Signed-off-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
4 ---
5 doc/catalyst-config.5.txt | 30 +-----------------------------
6 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 29 deletions(-)
7
8 diff --git a/doc/catalyst-config.5.txt b/doc/catalyst-config.5.txt
9 index 4fe1af8c..f17944b2 100644
10 --- a/doc/catalyst-config.5.txt
11 +++ b/doc/catalyst-config.5.txt
12 @@ -168,22 +168,7 @@ This section is only important if you are using binary packages to
13 build your stages (by enabling the `pkgcache` option and restarting
14 incomplete builds).
15
16 -Before EAPI-5 introduced ABI sub-slots, the build-time compatibility
17 -of packages was not recorded. This leads to problems such as binary
18 -GCC packages built against mpc-0.8.2 (which installs libmpc.so.2)
19 -being installed on systems that only have mpc-1.0.1 (which installs
20 -libmpc.so.3), resulting in:
21 -
22 ----------------------------------
23 -/usr/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.3/cc1:
24 - error while loading shared libraries: libmpc.so.2:
25 - cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
26 ----------------------------------
27 -
28 -As long as there are packages in your stage that don't use ABI
29 -sub-slots, you may experience errors like this due to untracked ABI
30 -missmatches in binary packages. Packages generated by catalyst builds
31 -are currently namespaced:
32 +Packages generated by catalyst builds are namespaced:
33
34 If versioned_cache is set:
35 ---------------------------------
36 @@ -194,19 +179,6 @@ Otherwise:
37 .../packages/<rel_type>/<target>-<subarch>/Packages
38 ---------------------------------
39
40 -so running into these out-of-date packages is unlikely. You may run
41 -into problems if:
42 -
43 -* you enable `update_seed` in your stage1 spec after a previous run
44 - which generated packages linking against out-of-date seed libraries
45 - or
46 -* you update your snapshot and an untracked ABI dependency is bumped
47 - without a similar bump in the dependent package.
48 -
49 -without also bumping any of the package namespace variables in your
50 -spec. If you do make such a change, it's a good idea to clear the
51 -package cache in question and rebuild the packages from scratch.
52 -
53
54 FILES
55 -----
56 --
57 2.26.2