From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-47712-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1R5ARz-0001Nc-MG
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:01:59 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A61BB21C163;
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:01:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com (mail-pz0-f42.google.com [209.85.210.42])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B64321C04F
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pzk1 with SMTP id 1so7005845pzk.1
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=o0VTq9TmXS0tqsb6JnAexKFvLTorYB7Ts9cI5igYTeY=;
b=wfJk1R4KmXWlxNoB2cfmpSFte1UbHcPKXU5CLolR43c76/HcRROAEk8evvr2iUUsm2
Mwg05HnGstdQNGu+Rbdj3ccRNlbP9c8MWw0D5UACod5cixXuis55AEbBXRLQ47yZ9NFt
1ucihQVDL3CKOr9jYWEFq8NcXGmO3C8sYR3/4=
Received: by 10.68.10.226 with SMTP id l2mr2125021pbb.126.1316325682486;
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm52329432pbk.5.2011.09.17.23.01.19
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:01:20 -0700
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:01:20 -0700
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>
Cc: Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for
September 13 council meeting
Message-ID: <20110918060120.GA6005@localhost>
References: <4E64C7BB.907@gentoo.org>
<201109160122.00747.Arfrever.FTA@gmail.com>
<20110915235444.GB31364@beast>
<201109160220.27814.Arfrever@gentoo.org>
<4E73BA52.3000501@gentoo.org>
<20110918034735.GA4525@comet.mayo.edu>
<4E758121.8020002@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E758121.8020002@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: c3c10db4c7dc2785e5bef91eb2437b28
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26:57PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
> >> matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
> >> version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait until
> >> at least 6 months after supporting package managers have been
> >> available in stable.
> >
> > So in your opinion, it would be fine to bump profiles/eapi to EAPI=4
> > now?
>
> Yes, it's feasible. As a consequence, we may get some complaints from
> users who haven't upgraded during the last six months.
Bit more than complaints; any system running a PM older than 6 months
or so (regardless of paludis/portage/pkgcore) will have to roll their
own profile to merge *anything*.
Period.
A pkg going to an unsupported eapi precludes the package from being
used; bumping the root profile node to 4 (or any node in the users
chain) means they /cannot use that profile/.
If people are seriously going to pull something this level of
heinous, at the very least plan it- it's a sizable enough breakage
other things could/should be shoved in (including giving people
significant warning).
To be absolutely clear, You bump the base to EAPI4, you're actively
making every system w/ a 6 month lag basically invalidated.
For reference of the actual eapi usage in the tree (pinspect
eapi_usage), is the following:
eapi: '0' 10629 pkgs found, 36.73% of the repository
eapi: '2' 7254 pkgs found, 25.07% of the repository
eapi: '3' 5315 pkgs found, 18.37% of the repository
eapi: '4' 5013 pkgs found, 17.32% of the repository
eapi: '1' 728 pkgs found, 2.52% of the repository
> For users like
> these, we could take a snapshot of the tree before the EAPI is bumped,
> and archive it so they can use it to update their package manager to a
> version that supports the new EAPI.
Target the profiles; no need to snapshot the whole tree unless the
plan is to bump 83% of the tree forward to EAPI4 shortly there
after (which is mildly rediculous in it's own anyways)...
~harring