| 1 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> posted 4A0DD0ED.1070108@g.o, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 23:30:37 +0300: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Indeed there's no problem switching EAPIs as long as a stable Portage |
| 5 |
> supports the EAPI you are migrating to. Portage was buggy with this when |
| 6 |
> EAPI 2 was introduced but that has since been fixed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The case at hand is EAPI-0 > EAPI-1. I've no opinion there. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
However, just this last week I tracked down and provided a patch for an |
| 11 |
EAPI-0 > EAPI-2 conversion related bug[1] in an existing previously |
| 12 |
working ebuild, converted without a bump. It was and remained ~arch so |
| 13 |
users should have been prepared to cope, but a bump would have been nice |
| 14 |
and it would have been a SERIOUS mistake to try to do that as stable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So I agree with the earlier opinion that while it may not matter for |
| 17 |
EAPI-0 > EAPI-1, as a general policy and certainly for conversions to |
| 18 |
EAPI-2 and probably EAPI-3, a revision bump and ~arch keywording, thus |
| 19 |
forcing the package thru a new stabilizing process, should be strongly |
| 20 |
recommended at minimum -- enough that a tree change to dozens of stable |
| 21 |
ebuilds such as is being discussed simply wouldn't be possible, without |
| 22 |
assuming a bump and new stabilization process, thus, effectively |
| 23 |
requiring 60-days working minimum process time (30 no-bugs, 30 stable- |
| 24 |
keywording). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1] Bug #269691, kaffeine |
| 27 |
plain: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269691 |
| 28 |
secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269691 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives