Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc portage news item

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1550 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 08:58:31PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > >
> > >> please have a look at the attached patch.
> > >
> > >> -EAPI="1"
> > >> +EAPI="4"
> > >
> > > Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style"
> > > to "EAPI 2 style" too?
> > 
> > If the goal is to get this stable in a week, and bypass the 1 month
> > waiting period, do we really want to change EAPI at this point?  From
> > an end-user perspective updating the EAPI on the ebuild provides no
> > benefit.  Why not just deal with that in a future revision?
> > 
> > I don't see much value in rewriting the ebuild to use a new EAPI
> > simply because 4 > 1.
> 
> EAPI was bumped so I could use pkg_pretend, please check out my
> (incomplete) patch.

I don't remember the details  right now, but I remember speaking with
vapier when I first started working on openrc, and he stated that he
felt we should stay away from higher eapis for system packages.

I don't really remember his reasoning for that right now, but I remember
that is why I didn't migrate the ebuild to a higher eapi a while back.

Also, this patch doesn't stop baselayout-2 from being installed, so I do
not know what state it would leave a system in if you ran this and
happened to upgrade baselayout, then reboot without installing openrc.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]