1 |
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:03:45 AllenJB wrote: |
2 |
> Patrick Lauer wrote: |
3 |
> > Hi all, |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you |
6 |
> > count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting |
7 |
> > quite confusing. |
8 |
> > To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating |
9 |
> > existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be |
10 |
> > obsoleted at some point in the future. |
11 |
> > I would set the start of deprecation warnings about 3 months from now and |
12 |
> > the obsoletion quite a time later, maybe 12 months from now, when a |
13 |
> > sufficient amount of ebuilds has been migrated. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > Deprecating EAPI1 at the same time would reduce the amount of EAPIs we |
16 |
> > have to think about, but since it has some changes like adding |
17 |
> > src_prepare migration would not be as trivial. So I'd prefer keeping it |
18 |
> > around a bit longer. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Comments? |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Patrick |
24 |
> |
25 |
> While there definitely arguments for deprecating EAPIs, I would suggest |
26 |
> caution. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> A low number of active EAPIs can make life easier for developers, but it |
29 |
> can also make life harder for some users. There are still users coming |
30 |
> to the forums upgrading systems which only understand EAPI 0. I accept |
31 |
> that Gentoo is certainly a relatively fast moving distro, but I think |
32 |
> that developers also do need to consider users who have systems that are |
33 |
> currently "just working" and may not upgrade often (once a year or even |
34 |
> less) |
35 |
> |
36 |
> As such, I would suggest that forcing a move to the most recent stable |
37 |
> EAPI is possibly unwise. |
38 |
> |
39 |
<snip> |
40 |
> AllenJB |
41 |
|
42 |
Note, this just my opinion. It may not be entirely practical or cover all the |
43 |
issues regarding backwards compatibility. I intend it to provoke questions |
44 |
and thought as to what a reasonable policy for backwards compatibility might |
45 |
cover. |
46 |
|
47 |
Waiting a year or longer to upgrade a gentoo system carries a good risk of |
48 |
having something explode into a near unrecoverable mess. |
49 |
|
50 |
I definitely do think that some major focus needs to be placed on how far |
51 |
behind a gentoo system could be and should still be expected to catch up. |
52 |
|
53 |
An oversimplified example. Assume that I can find all required patches and |
54 |
source code to do the initial builds, and that all normal configuration file |
55 |
checks/updates are done after the current tree is installed. |
56 |
|
57 |
I create three different virtual machines from cvs snapshots of the portage |
58 |
tree. The first is dated 6 months ago. The second is dated 12 months ago. The |
59 |
third is dated 18 months ago. |
60 |
|
61 |
Which of these should be reasonably updateable to the current portage tree? |
62 |
|
63 |
My suggestion is that policy should allow machine 1 to be updated through |
64 |
regular update procedures to the current tree, unless major changes dictate |
65 |
otherwise. Major changes being incompatible ebuild formats, toolchains, and |
66 |
other here is the line sorry kind of changes. |
67 |
|
68 |
A careful operator should probably be able get machine 2 updated to the |
69 |
current tree, again unless major changes dictate otherwise. We should not |
70 |
make go out of our way to make upgrading from this point out hard for the |
71 |
operator, but, new growth should be favored over the ease of upgrading. |
72 |
|
73 |
Machine 3 is just out of luck. Here is the new install cd and handbook, have |
74 |
fun. |
75 |
|
76 |
Regular update procedures would be: |
77 |
emerge --sync; emerge -uND world -f; emerge -uND world; revdep-rebuild; |
78 |
emerge --depclean; |
79 |
|
80 |
The careful operator might update the toolchain first and emerge -e world or |
81 |
something similar. |