1 |
Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> posted 4A0DD0ED.1070108@g.o, |
3 |
> excerpted below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 23:30:37 +0300: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Indeed there's no problem switching EAPIs as long as a stable Portage |
6 |
>> supports the EAPI you are migrating to. Portage was buggy with this when |
7 |
>> EAPI 2 was introduced but that has since been fixed. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> The case at hand is EAPI-0 > EAPI-1. I've no opinion there. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> However, just this last week I tracked down and provided a patch for an |
12 |
> EAPI-0 > EAPI-2 conversion related bug[1] in an existing previously |
13 |
> working ebuild, converted without a bump. It was and remained ~arch so |
14 |
> users should have been prepared to cope, but a bump would have been nice |
15 |
> and it would have been a SERIOUS mistake to try to do that as stable. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
Well even with EAPI 2 it's quite hard to introduce breakage if you |
19 |
actually test the changes. If you don't do proper testing, then the only |
20 |
way to prevent breakage is to kick that developer out, no policy is |
21 |
going to help. (I am not implying we should start kicking people out for |
22 |
small mistakes though) |
23 |
|
24 |
Regards, |
25 |
Petteri |