| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hi. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> As the KDE team prepares to add revised eclasses for the KDE3 ebuilds so |
| 9 |
>> we can get 3.5.10 marked stable and then finally ask for KDE4 |
| 10 |
>> stabilization, we'd like to drop some old eclasses from the tree. We |
| 11 |
>> plan to drop the kde-base, kde-dist, kde-i18n and kde-source eclasses as |
| 12 |
>> they're no longer used. |
| 13 |
>> So unless someone has any objections, we'll drop the eclasses from the |
| 14 |
>> tree in the next few days. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> In case anyone has any doubts about portage reliance on the eclasses, |
| 17 |
>> let me quote Zac: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> #gentoo-dev 20:19 <@zmedico> jmbsvicetto: it's only an issue for people |
| 20 |
>> upgrading from less than portage-2.1.4, which is pretty rare nowadays |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> For the KDE team, |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> It's an issue for people who have packages in vdb emerged with portage |
| 27 |
> older than 2.1.4 (if this was the version where the env started being |
| 28 |
> added to vdb). I have been maintaining the position that nuking eclasses |
| 29 |
> doesn't really provide enough benefits to bork these installs. I |
| 30 |
> recommend just making the eclasses unusable for emerging stuff and |
| 31 |
> keeping uninstalls working. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Regards, |
| 34 |
> Petteri |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Yeah, but how many people would really be affected by this? Also, I |
| 38 |
talked to Zac about this and all an user would need to do to get Portage |
| 39 |
to work again would be to grab the dropped eclasses. We could document |
| 40 |
this and provide links to the eclasses or create a tarball with the |
| 41 |
dropped eclasses. |
| 42 |
Even though this could affect packages merged before portage-2.1.4, the |
| 43 |
only packages that would be affected are packages that haven't had any |
| 44 |
updates since then and that means the eclasses they may use are still |
| 45 |
required and can not be dropped. So this will only affect users that |
| 46 |
haven't synced and updated their system for over 1 year. |
| 47 |
As I recall the issue about dropping eclasses being raised before and we |
| 48 |
have 27 deprecated eclasses in the tree (as determined by grep |
| 49 |
DEPRECATED $(portageq portdir)/eclass/* and that doesn't return all the |
| 50 |
kde eclasses we would like to drop), should we postpone this issue |
| 51 |
forever? The potential breakage will only diminish with time, so what |
| 52 |
benefits are required to out weight it? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
- -- |
| 56 |
Regards, |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 59 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE |
| 60 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 61 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 62 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkn7V/0ACgkQcAWygvVEyAIB3wCfRc/aQmDFfXirUfk/0I62a1l6 |
| 65 |
W2gAn0MUDL5T/yhRkdK5eM3/1d7ZUgL8 |
| 66 |
=ISah |
| 67 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives