| 1 |
On 2011.01.02 16:02, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/02/2011 05:19 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > One way we could drop EAPI 0 would be if we do a major review of |
| 7 |
> tree |
| 8 |
> > and repo formats to improve upgrade paths, which would however |
| 9 |
> likely |
| 10 |
> > require breaking backwards compatibility at such point. |
| 11 |
> > I believe such a change would only be acceptable, if we would pack |
| 12 |
> > enough features and safety measures that it would ensure another |
| 13 |
> break |
| 14 |
> > would not need to be done for a long time. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It's quite likely that if you are currently on a system with Portage |
| 18 |
> that does not understand EAPI 1 there's so many obstacles along the |
| 19 |
> upgrade path that a clean install makes more sense. Maybe someone is |
| 20 |
> willing to test this so that we actually know if there is an upgrade |
| 21 |
> path from EAPI 0 available any more. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Regards, |
| 24 |
> Petteri |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
There is an upgrade path from a pure EAPI0 system but it starts with a |
| 29 |
visit to the tinderbox as portage and python block one another. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Some other interesting things along the way:- |
| 32 |
You need to incrementally update gcc and glibc as there is some |
| 33 |
mutual blockage there too. |
| 34 |
libpng-1.2, xorg and libexpat too if the box is old enough. How far do |
| 35 |
you want to go back? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Its a very educational experience but a reinstall is faster. |
| 38 |
The real killer is that some core system packages need EAPI>0 to build. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Personally, I don't regard tinderbox as any part of any officially |
| 41 |
supported upgrade path. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Regards, |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Roy Bamford |
| 47 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 48 |
gentoo-ops |
| 49 |
forum-mods |
| 50 |
trustees |
Archives