| 1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> (Yes, this has EAPI in the title, so that means everyone will chime in) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'd like to clarify and (eventually) set in stone our ideas of best practices |
| 5 |
> when it comes to bumping EAPI for system packages. I was of the belief that |
| 6 |
> we had decided that system packages should remain at EAPI 0 for |
| 7 |
> backwards-compatibility reasons. It seems, however, that this was never |
| 8 |
> written down anywhere and today we find ourselves in a situation where it is |
| 9 |
> impossible to bootstrap a Gentoo system from a pre-EAPI-era liveCD due to all |
| 10 |
> python versions being EAPI 1 or later. Maybe we don't care anymore, but I'd |
| 11 |
> like to know what people think. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think the consensus was / is? that the upgrade path from EAPI 0 should |
| 15 |
have existed until we decide to not support it anymore and the decision |
| 16 |
should not have been made by for example python maintainers. The only |
| 17 |
packages that matter are Portage dependencies not the full system |
| 18 |
target. Basically you need to be able to upgrade your Portage and use |
| 19 |
the new version. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Petteri |
Archives