"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zeroch...@gentoo.org> writes:
> On 09/28/2013 03:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, heroxbd wrote: >> >>> I am revisiting this topic based on previous discussions[1,2,3]. >> >>> There seems to be a constant need for toolchain with a new EAPI. The >>> only block is "how can we upgrade from an ancient system?", "don't >>> bump or the upgrade path will be break". Let's figure out a solid >>> upgrade path consciously, with a test farm of ancient systems, and >>> then bump the EAPI of toolchain. >> >> The upgrade path is not at all what is blocking this. In its 20130409 >> meeting, the council has (unanimously) decided: "EAPIs 0 to 2 are no >> longer required for the upgrade path of users' systems." >> >> The reason why toolchain packages are still at EAPI 0 was explained in >> this posting: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2369/focus=2377 >> >> AFAICS, changing that is entirely the task of the toolchain team. Thank you for the clarification, Ulrich. > Yes, it is entirely the task of the toolchain team, and looks like > heroxbd joined the toolchain team and would like to push the rest of his > team for this update. Something I greatly thank him for. > > I don't think any dev wants to (or really could) force toolchain to > update individually, however, if motivated people want to join the team > and help, his question appeared to be will it be permitted to be > updated. Can't agree with you more. It's just a starting point, though. I still don't have a clear plan yet. After reading carefully the thread Ulrich pointed out, it seems that refactoring ebuild/eclass is invevitable, which calls for an overlay to carry it on. Benda
