Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvice...@gentoo.org> wrote:
I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
<tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
- - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
profiles/ ?
The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
Last month's meeting
they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
that discussion?
"An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage
can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile
available so cannot emerge a new version of portage.
"Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
profiles can use higher EAPIs.
Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask
as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1
the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule
on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ?
So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom
and move on..? In that case:
Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded
due to the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait
much longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian
Harring suggests - I agree).
I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities
that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every
group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't
necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them
or anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0
stages[1], 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]).
IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our
user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think
the Council decision is appropriate.
-Jeremy
[1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/
[2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12
[3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans
[4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm
"Ref:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml";
I haven't finished & posted last month's summary
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20081211-summary.txt> yet because of a
long holiday vacation and lots of work deadlines after returning. I'll
get all that stuff updated this week.
