| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 15/08/15 02:48 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:12:42 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 8/15/15 3:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Secondly, though, conversion to EAPI5 is not actually |
| 8 |
>>> trivial, there are a couple of things, 'usex' related for |
| 9 |
>>> instance, that also need to be taken care of. If it was just |
| 10 |
>>> a matter of running a sed -e 's/^EAPI=4/EAPI=5/' on all |
| 11 |
>>> in-tree ebuilds this would have been done a long time ago. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Do you mean that it would break things or just while |
| 14 |
>> technically working the ebuilds mass converted in this way |
| 15 |
>> would not take advantage of EAPI5 features such use 'usex'? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Another issue: EAPI change normally requires revision bump. |
| 18 |
> Revision bump for stable packages will require stabilization |
| 19 |
> request in most cases (e.g. if all current stable versions are |
| 20 |
> <EAPI 5). Stabilization request often take ages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't think that one's actually true in the general case. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
EAPI5 conversions needed revbumps because the addition of subslots |
| 25 |
or slot operators to dependencies requires a revbump (and EAPI5 adds |
| 26 |
default :${SLOT}/${SLOT} to all deps in VDB for portage at least) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That said, it is another reason in this particular case, thanks! |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXPOyUACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1BwgD/feoCRfMWQdzj0lpoHDBr2HJz |
| 33 |
AcuEi7WWsxPyjn4FSqYBALQNPyjOTbr7B6T41J3pA/wgdbwTSZJr01un2GoyqZ7y |
| 34 |
=1qRi |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives