Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 6 portage is out!

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 18/11/15 02:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem that unlikely to me...
>
>> 1. Otherwise stable system with package "foo" keyworded as
>> ~arch.
>
>> 2. foo needs some dependency of a dependency named "bar".
>
>> 3. The bar maintainer revbumps and removes the old EAPI=5
>> ebuild.
>
>> I don't really care either way, I'm just wondering whether this
>> is "safe" because it's actually safe, or "safe" because we're
>> gonna do it anyway.
>
> Actually it is quite simple:
>
> - The stable tree should not contain any EAPI 6 ebuilds at this
> point, so stable users should not see any change. - Unstable
> users will have a package manager aware of EAPI 6, so all ebuilds
> will be visible for it. - If you mix stable and unstable then you
> are by definition an advanced user, who will be able to cope with
> the situation. :)
>

And, as a developer maintaining bar in #3 above, you should make
sure that either the stable version satisfies all rdeps (even those
in ~arch), or you don't remove the EAPI5 ~arch version until all the
rdeps are EAPI6.

Theoretically repoman could check for this; i don't know if it's
implemented though or if there are any plans to implement it..
IIRC, confirming removals don't break rdeps is not something repoman
can do unless you run a 'repoman full' on the whole tree (or at
least all the rdeps) yourself.  This really isn't any different from
the case where foo-1.0 has RDEPEND=" =bar-3.0 " and then bar-3.0 is
dropped.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlZMyF8ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe21RAD7Bxku5bXPbQGLcCwgefjJqadB
LA1tSiK0OkCeUKwvtXEBALw4owHTN/cIOZTFgJkx+scKVvH8lefZbQVjTl9w8KlS
=qb2w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----