| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> It doesn't seem that unlikely to me... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> 1. Otherwise stable system with package "foo" keyworded as ~arch. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> 2. foo needs some dependency of a dependency named "bar". |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> 3. The bar maintainer revbumps and removes the old EAPI=5 ebuild. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I don't really care either way, I'm just wondering whether this is |
| 12 |
> "safe" because it's actually safe, or "safe" because we're gonna do |
| 13 |
> it anyway. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Actually it is quite simple: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- The stable tree should not contain any EAPI 6 ebuilds at this point, |
| 18 |
so stable users should not see any change. |
| 19 |
- Unstable users will have a package manager aware of EAPI 6, so all |
| 20 |
ebuilds will be visible for it. |
| 21 |
- If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an |
| 22 |
advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives