| 1 |
On 11/17/2015 08:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> If your PM doesn't support EAPI6, then those ebuilds will be ignored |
| 4 |
> just as if they do not exist. It is plenty safe. There can be |
| 5 |
> issues if EAPI5 or older ~arch packages start -needing- EAPI6-only |
| 6 |
> ~arch dependencies, but so long as people are careful (and likely, |
| 7 |
> start bumping to EAPI6 along with the dependencies) then things will |
| 8 |
> work out without much incident. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It doesn't seem that unlikely to me... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
1. Otherwise stable system with package "foo" keyworded as ~arch. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
2. foo needs some dependency of a dependency named "bar". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
3. The bar maintainer revbumps and removes the old EAPI=5 ebuild. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't really care either way, I'm just wondering whether this is |
| 20 |
"safe" because it's actually safe, or "safe" because we're gonna do it |
| 21 |
anyway. |
Archives