1 |
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200 |
2 |
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Wrong. For example: |
5 |
> - stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending |
6 |
> on the package manager |
7 |
> - --disable-static (maybe in a later EAPI) changes content |
8 |
> - slot-dep-operators change the rdepend of installed packages, so it |
9 |
> changes how the package manager has to handle reverse packages on |
10 |
> uninstall (in EAPI 3) |
11 |
|
12 |
None of which are a problem when changing the EAPI from 0 to 1, which is the |
13 |
situation here. The first two examples fall under the currently established |
14 |
guideline of revbumping when content changes (and I emphasize guideline). I |
15 |
don't see how the third example is any different than adding or removing |
16 |
dependencies, which also does not require a revbump. So I'd argue that an |
17 |
EAPI change does not require a revision bump in and of itself. That's not to |
18 |
say it shouldn't be done if the situation allows, or you have any doubts, or |
19 |
just because you want to. But unconditionally putting an ebuild through full |
20 |
~arch to stable cycle because you added a simple SLOT dependency or a + to a |
21 |
USE flag is bureaucratic nonsense. |
22 |
|
23 |
> And we also always said that a rev bump should be done on non trivial |
24 |
> changes or non-build-fixes and changing the EAPI is technical seen |
25 |
> mostly a non-trivial change. |
26 |
|
27 |
As above, it depends on the situation. 0 -> 1 is a trivial change. |
28 |
|
29 |
> Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) |
30 |
> - When is it allowed to use an EAPI in the tree (given as offset to the |
31 |
> release of portage supporting that eapi) |
32 |
> - When is it allowed to use an EAPI in the stable tree (given as offset |
33 |
> of when a portage version supporting that EAPI got stable) |
34 |
|
35 |
As soon as a version of portage supporting that EAPI is available. |
36 |
|
37 |
This is the entire point of the EAPI, that we don't have to wait X amount of |
38 |
time before using new features. If the user hasn't updated portage yet, they |
39 |
simply won't see ebuilds which use the new EAPI. |
40 |
|
41 |
We may want to document a suggested waiting time before removing ebuilds |
42 |
using older EAPI's. For example, should we always keep an EAPI 0 ebuild in |
43 |
stable as a fallback? Or if the user tries to install or update a package |
44 |
where all versions are masked by EAPI, should (does?) portage suggest updating |
45 |
itself? How long should we keep core system packages at earlier EAPI's? |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
50 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
51 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |