| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 05:38:34PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02:03 Tue 14 Oct , Jose Luis Rivero wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > There are some others sceneries but are not so common as the one presented |
| 5 |
> > could be. Any decent solution for this case? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> There are only a few obvious ones, you'll have to pick which one you |
| 8 |
> like best. Most of the other options basically duplicate these in some |
| 9 |
> way or add more work to them for negligible gain: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> - Backport the ebuild from EAPI=2 to EAPI=0 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
EAPI-2 to EAPI-0 could imply lot of changes (not talking about what is |
| 14 |
going to happen when we release new and more feature rich EAPIs), and |
| 15 |
changes usually come with bugs. The ebuild is committed directly to stable |
| 16 |
implies bugs in stable, which for me is a no-go. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> - Backport the security patch to the EAPI=0 ebuild |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Which sometimes is going to be impossible, require lot of work, and we |
| 21 |
fall into the risk of bad backported patches when non trivial backport |
| 22 |
patches are needed (which turns into buggy patches in the stable branch) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> - Stabilize portage quickly |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Most of the times this is not going to be possible. Seems to me that EAPI |
| 27 |
changes are not trivial to PMs and need some kind of decent testing |
| 28 |
period. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thanks. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Jose Luis Rivero <yoswink@g.o> |
| 34 |
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha |
Archives