Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Jeremy Olexa]

Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote:
>> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
>>>>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
>>>>>> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
>>>>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
>>>>>> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
>>>>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
>>>>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
>>>>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
>>>>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
>>>>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
>>>>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
>>>>>> profiles/ ?
>>>>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
>>>>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
>>>> Last month's meeting
>>>>
>>>>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
>>>>> that discussion?
>>>> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage
>>>> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile available so
>>>> cannot emerge a new version of portage.
>>>>
>>>> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev
>>>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> profiles can use higher EAPIs.
>>> Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask
>>> as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1
>>> the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule
>>> on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ?
>> So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom and
>> move on..? In that case:
>>
>> Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded due to
>> the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait much
>> longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian Harring
>> suggests - I agree).
>>
>> I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities
>> that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every
>> group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't
>> necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them or
>> anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0 stages[1],
>> 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]).
>
> Dude, even people like Ubuntu/Canonical don't support stuff that old
> (current LTS is April 2008).
>
> The tree is now; see the date?  It's 2009, not 2007.
>
> One of the biggest problems Gentoo has is backwards compatibility and
> legacy stuff; it is the nightmare of every project and there has to be
> a point where you say 'tough.'  So make a decision, announce it widely
> that on X date the tree will just break for users; write up a FAQ on
> how to upgrade past it, and then make the changes.

2008.0 was released on Jul 6 2008[1]. So, you think that after 6 months, 
it is time to say "tough"? Sorry, I don't agree.

[1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/release/2008.0/index.xml#doc_chap2

>
> Realize once again that the tree was not designed very well and it has
> issues on a number of levels and it can't all be engineered around;
> and for progress to be made you will *have to break existing stuff*.
>
>> IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our
>> user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think the
>> Council decision is appropriate.
>
> You seriously see no benefits to EAPI 1 or 2 in profiles?  What about
> slot deps? use deps? these things have been core feature requests
> since 2003; surely you don't think they are useless to our users?

No, I didn't say that at all, *sigh*

>
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> [1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/
>> [2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12
>> [3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans
>> [4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm
>>