1 |
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 01:00 +0100, Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: |
2 |
> So this is about, if the current "policy" for using EAPI 2 in the tree |
3 |
> is really "good" or it should be improved, when introducing future |
4 |
> EAPI's, where portage supporting that EAPI is still unstable. My |
5 |
> proposal would be, to only use new EAPI with a new version or revision |
6 |
> and also let the last non new EAPI version for unstable packages in the |
7 |
> tree. This would allow users of that unstable package with stable |
8 |
> portage to not downgrade or maintain their local version or forced to |
9 |
> upgrade portage. This would be a start. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I guess, I'm not the only one, having such a setup and it prevent user's |
12 |
> like me testing unstable packages. I need my PC on a daily basis, I |
13 |
> can't afford, having it to reinstall, only because I played with |
14 |
> unstable software. That's why I'm strict, when it comes to system |
15 |
> packages or important packages to me (and I have to congratulate the |
16 |
> gentoo devs for their work, my system just works like a charm and I'm |
17 |
> very happy with gentoo, only hardware failures could make me headaches). |
18 |
> So what I expect, is to find out, if setups like mine can or should be |
19 |
> somehow supported. I'm fine, when the outcome is, that I won't be |
20 |
> supported, then I know and should rethink my strategy to manage my |
21 |
> gentoo boxes. |
22 |
|
23 |
As a arch developer and mostly stable user, I also find this very |
24 |
frustrating. |
25 |
|
26 |
I'd like to go further and ask that for the next EAPI change, we only |
27 |
allow ebuilds using it into the tree once a version of portage that |
28 |
supports it has gone stable. And then, not make any ebuild with the new |
29 |
EAPI stable for 60 more days so that the new EAPI related code in |
30 |
portage can be tested properly. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Olivier Crête |
34 |
tester@g.o |
35 |
Gentoo Developer |