On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:40, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:30:17 +0900 > Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:21, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > Marius Mauch schrieb: > > > > So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is > > > > a requirement for 2.1: enforcing dependencies needed to use the > > > > tree (see old threads or glep44 for reasoning). > > > > Can you summarise the reasoning again please? > > a) avoid massive breakage when certain new features are introduced > (past examples being cascading profiles or new-style virtuals)
I can't see how massive breakage can be avoided. With your patch the only difference is instead of partial breakage it's something like "your system is likely broken so go and visit some page to find out if it really is and how you can fix it." > b) similar to a) allow people to use new features without having to > wait for a year or two Why not just always force portage to be upgraded to at least the latest stable version? The user can override it by masking (although there isn't ever any need to as portage doesn't affect other software). If the ebuild environment is properly documented, things such as new bash features can be tied to EAPI. Using EAPI on portage ebuilds themselves, a clear upgrade path can be designated and maintained within the tree. With EAPI and forced portage upgrades, the only thing that isn't covered is profile "masking". However, your patch doesn't really cover that either. Unless I'm missing how that would be covered? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
