1 |
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 8:37 AM n952162 <n952162@×××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I was complaining, mostly, that isodate had to be the thing that was |
4 |
> incompatible with my configuration. Maybe there is a unavoidable reason |
5 |
> that that package had to move to the newest EAPI, or maybe it was just a |
6 |
> sense that it's cool to be with the cutting edge. It seems to me that |
7 |
> isodate (which is actually tied, perhaps indirectly, to clearly slow |
8 |
> United Nations rule-making) must be pretty stable. |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
it is generally encouraged that packages use the latest EAPI - there |
12 |
are a lot of reasons for doing so. The main ones that get held back |
13 |
are packages that would interfere with updating portage and the |
14 |
toolchain, since those are what are most needed when somebody does an |
15 |
update. |
16 |
|
17 |
All you need to do in order to resolve an incompatible EAPI issue is |
18 |
update portage. We don't really provide support for running |
19 |
out-of-date versions of portage itself. There really isn't much |
20 |
reason to run an old version of portage - it is unlikely that updating |
21 |
portage is going to cause incompatibilities on your system as almost |
22 |
nothing uses portage except the distribution itself. |
23 |
|
24 |
It might not hurt if that error message included the suggestion to run |
25 |
"emerge -u portage" to update it. It does say that the solution is to |
26 |
update portage - it just doesn't explicitly tell you how to do so. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> Those distros are not source distros. I'm making an argument that |
30 |
> there's a large space between binary distributions and source |
31 |
> distributions that pass every upstream change down in realtime. Gentoo |
32 |
> is in the best position to service that space |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
There may be a nice for a release-based source-based distribution, and |
36 |
nothing is stopping anybody from adding releases to Gentoo (a trivial |
37 |
way to do this would be to just fork the repository and update it in |
38 |
releases). I just don't think there is THAT much interest among the |
39 |
community in doing so, and even if such a thing were created I'm |
40 |
pretty skeptical that they wouldn't at least keep portage and the |
41 |
EAPIs cutting-edge, as it doesn't really hurt anything to do so. |
42 |
|
43 |
If you want to kick something like that off though feel free. All you |
44 |
need to do is clone the Gentoo repository, and use some |
45 |
branches/tags/etc to manage it. You could pull in whatever you want |
46 |
in whatever branch you want, and curate releases. Really the only |
47 |
hard part would be the curation and QA. If you wanted somebody to run |
48 |
the CI tools against your repo and file bugs for you I wouldn't be |
49 |
surprised if infra was willing to do so. It would still be a fair bit |
50 |
of work, and I'm really skeptical that it would get much use. |
51 |
|
52 |
To address your follow-up email, many popular binary distros have been |
53 |
working on reproducible builds, so if your main concern is fear of |
54 |
what might be bundled inside packages, I'd think that would mitigate a |
55 |
lot of it. |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Rich |