| 1 |
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100 |
| 8 |
>>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an |
| 10 |
>>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas |
| 11 |
>>>> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might |
| 12 |
>>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0. |
| 13 |
>>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p. |
| 14 |
>>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago |
| 15 |
>>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages. |
| 16 |
>>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can |
| 17 |
>>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later |
| 18 |
>>>> profiles/ ? |
| 19 |
>>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't |
| 20 |
>>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and |
| 21 |
>> Last month's meeting |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see |
| 24 |
>>> that discussion? |
| 25 |
>> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage |
| 26 |
>> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile |
| 27 |
>> available so cannot emerge a new version of portage. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev |
| 30 |
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| 31 |
>> profiles can use higher EAPIs. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask |
| 34 |
> as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1 |
| 35 |
> the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule |
| 36 |
> on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom |
| 39 |
and move on..? In that case: |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded |
| 42 |
due to the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait |
| 43 |
much longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian |
| 44 |
Harring suggests - I agree). |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities |
| 47 |
that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every |
| 48 |
group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't |
| 49 |
necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them |
| 50 |
or anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0 |
| 51 |
stages[1], 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]). |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our |
| 54 |
user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think |
| 55 |
the Council decision is appropriate. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-Jeremy |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
[1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/ |
| 60 |
[2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12 |
| 61 |
[3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans |
| 62 |
[4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
>> "Ref: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml" |
| 66 |
>> |
| 67 |
>> |
| 68 |
>> I haven't finished & posted last month's summary |
| 69 |
>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20081211-summary.txt> yet because of a |
| 70 |
>> long holiday vacation and lots of work deadlines after returning. I'll |
| 71 |
>> get all that stuff updated this week. |
| 72 |
>> |
Archives