Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] obs eclasses
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:42:14
Message-Id: 20110913164100.GH31178@comet
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] obs eclasses by Patrick Lauer
On 17:58 Tue 13 Sep     , Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 09/13/11 16:44, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > It's because people want to pretend that it's possible for > > incredibly outdated systems (those with bash-3 only) to be updated. > > Actually it's worse - PMS enforces this, and the only clean way out is > to patch/fix/extend PMS to allow bash4 - but that breaks compatibility > in silly ways. > > The proper way to handle that? I'm not sure, since we had a long fight > to get PMS to acknowledge bash 3.2 instead of 3.0 I'm mostly ignoring > PMS as it doesn't care about reality.
Thanks for the reminder; I looked, and it turns out that we now have a great precedent. Quoting PMS: "The required bash version was retroactively updated from 3.0 to 3.2 in November 2009 (see http://www.gentoo. org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt)." So we could just retroactively update it again and let people scream if they're actually affected by this.
> > We're stuck in this limbo because "we" have apparently decided that > > just waiting a year, as we used to do, isn't good enough anymore; > > but at the same time, we don't have a better mechanism in place yet. > > So we're waffling around, doing nothing. > > That's not quite correct for this case, but it shows that we need to > discuss destructive changes (in the sense that they are not > backwards-compatible etc.) to have any decent progress
Maybe a way to set tree-level dependencies/EAPIs/features is something we seriously need to get going on. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog:


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] obs eclasses Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] obs eclasses Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>