[gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Torsten Veller]

EAPI-3 was approved by the council during their last meeting (2010-01-18).

Which portage versions do support it?
(I wasn't able to find it in the docs.)

When can we stabilize EAPI-3 ebuilds?
(I guess this is again a council decision?)

How long do we have to provide ebuilds for older EAPIs?
(We can drop them as long as users are able to upgrade to an EAPI-3
capable package-manager for at least one year from now/after
stabilisation?)


Is this worth to be documented if it isn't?

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

On 01/22/2010 10:58 AM, Torsten Veller wrote:
> EAPI-3 was approved by the council during their last meeting (2010-01-18).
> 
> Which portage versions do support it?
> (I wasn't able to find it in the docs.)
> 

I haven't heard of a release that would.

> When can we stabilize EAPI-3 ebuilds?
> (I guess this is again a council decision?)
> 

When a Portage version supporting EAPI-3 is stable. Council can
acknowledge at this point.

> How long do we have to provide ebuilds for older EAPIs?
> (We can drop them as long as users are able to upgrade to an EAPI-3
> capable package-manager for at least one year from now/after
> stabilisation?)
> 

Normally ebuild developers can just use the latest. As you said the only
thing that matters is the package manager upgrade path and that only
concerns a few packages.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Zac Medico]

On 01/22/2010 12:58 AM, Torsten Veller wrote:
> EAPI-3 was approved by the council during their last meeting (2010-01-18).
> 
> Which portage versions do support it?
> (I wasn't able to find it in the docs.)

It's supported in portage-2.1.7.17 and 2.2_rc62 which have just been
released.

-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Jacob Godserv]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 16:43, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It's supported in portage-2.1.7.17 and 2.2_rc62 which have just been
> released.

Just to clarify: it's EAPI 3 and not EAPI 3_pre2?

-- 
    Jacob

    "For then there will be great distress, unequaled
    from the beginning of the world until now — and never
    to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut
    short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the
    elect those days will be shortened."

    Are you ready?

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Zac Medico]

On 01/29/2010 01:45 PM, Jacob Godserv wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 16:43, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> It's supported in portage-2.1.7.17 and 2.2_rc62 which have just been
>> released.
> 
> Just to clarify: it's EAPI 3 and not EAPI 3_pre2?
> 

Right, EAPI 3_pre2 is deprecated now.

-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On 22 January 2010 08:58, Torsten Veller <ml-en@veller.net> wrote:
> When can we stabilize EAPI-3 ebuilds?

Note that you can't stick EAPI 3 ebuilds in gentoo-x86, even
package.masked, until the Portage version used to generate the
metadata shipped by rsync supports EAPI 3. Which apparently is not
yet...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-3 times and dates

[Zac Medico]

On 01/31/2010 06:47 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On 22 January 2010 08:58, Torsten Veller <ml-en@veller.net> wrote:
>> When can we stabilize EAPI-3 ebuilds?
> 
> Note that you can't stick EAPI 3 ebuilds in gentoo-x86, even
> package.masked, until the Portage version used to generate the
> metadata shipped by rsync supports EAPI 3. Which apparently is not
> yet...

It's fixed now:

  http://bugs.gentoo.org/302993

-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Who is interested by maintaining gnash ?

[Romain Perier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1354 bytes --]

Hey,
I'm not interested by maintaining www-plugins/gnash anymore, since it's
really boring to keep it working and up-to-date.
For example, few days ago a bug for bump it was opened, just for a
development release (even if it's a beta...) 3 patches o_O. And this is
just a begining...

The funny thing is upstream is not cooperative at all, autotools patches
are not accepted (that's why I don't send them on upstream, I meant with
an attitude like that it's just useless sorry...) . And when you want to
commit suicide per bump it's not normal (mainly because autotools aren't
standard and are so ugly, just unfixable, just for fun ask diego :D)

Probably gnash will be nice and powerful in a very long time (I hope),
but for now... a lot of work has to be done.

I don't know how to ask this favour: I need help ?! SOS ?! or just "go
ahead, I'm glad to give you this ebuild."

Mhhh... what else ? That all !
Have fun with gentoo, and most important : good luck ! :D

Regards,
Romain.
-- 
Romain Perier
Gentoo Linux Developer
Responsabilities : GNOME/KDE/AMD64/Desktop-effects/Sunrise
E-Mail           : mrpouet@gentoo.org
Site             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~mrpouet
Blog             : http://blogs.gentoo.org/mrpouet
GnuPG FP         : 5728 DC13 9600 864E 2C37 7D1F 3791 7B66 3B94 72EF
GnuPG ID         : 3B9472EF

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]