On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 01:00 +0100, Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: > So this is about, if the current "policy" for using EAPI 2 in the tree > is really "good" or it should be improved, when introducing future > EAPI's, where portage supporting that EAPI is still unstable. My > proposal would be, to only use new EAPI with a new version or revision > and also let the last non new EAPI version for unstable packages in the > tree. This would allow users of that unstable package with stable > portage to not downgrade or maintain their local version or forced to > upgrade portage. This would be a start. > > I guess, I'm not the only one, having such a setup and it prevent user's > like me testing unstable packages. I need my PC on a daily basis, I > can't afford, having it to reinstall, only because I played with > unstable software. That's why I'm strict, when it comes to system > packages or important packages to me (and I have to congratulate the > gentoo devs for their work, my system just works like a charm and I'm > very happy with gentoo, only hardware failures could make me headaches). > So what I expect, is to find out, if setups like mine can or should be > somehow supported. I'm fine, when the outcome is, that I won't be > supported, then I know and should rethink my strategy to manage my > gentoo boxes.
As a arch developer and mostly stable user, I also find this very frustrating. I'd like to go further and ask that for the next EAPI change, we only allow ebuilds using it into the tree once a version of portage that supports it has gone stable. And then, not make any ebuild with the new EAPI stable for 60 more days so that the new EAPI related code in portage can be tested properly. -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
