From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IdZ8R-0001WK-4E for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:25:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l94MEnxS020378; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:14:49 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l94MC8fJ016827 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:12:08 GMT Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB86E65092 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:12:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4705654D.7090102@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:12:29 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Planning for the transition to EAPI="1" support X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 61a03e75-6b34-4f6d-859c-09bc39436576 X-Archives-Hash: e0835a15a4da5c07afe0e725e490d8ea -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, A number of people have been expressing desires to start using some new extensions in the portage tree [1]. Due to popular demand, I'm preparing a sys-apps/portage-2.1.3.12 release that will have support for EAPI="1". The extensions planned for inclusion are SLOT dependencies (#174405), IUSE defaults (#174410), and ECONF_SOURCE support for the default src_compile function (#179380). In order to accomplish this EAPI bump within a short time frame, I've intentionally restricted the list of extensions to those that are already implemented and relatively non-controversial [2]. We could wait longer and include more features in our first EAPI bump, but that route can lead to delays. Making a small bump now has the advantage of allowing useful new extensions to be used in the tree sooner. I expect sys-apps/portage-2.1.3.12 to be ready for release tomorrow (Friday) or the day after. An important thing to note is that repoman from any version of portage less than 2.1.3.12 will be unable to work with ebuilds that have EAPI="1" defined. If the EAPI is bumped even for just a single version of a package, the latest version of repoman will be required in order to generate a manifest for that package (which is required for something like a KEYWORDS change). Similarly, in order for repoman to do it's usual dependency QA checks, all dependencies need to be satisfied by packages that have supported EAPIs. These limitations are natural consequences that arises from that fact that portage can not support a given EAPI until that EAPI has been precisely defined. Package maintainers should carefully consider the consequences before defining EAPI="1" in the ebuilds for any packages that they maintain. Once >=sys-apps/portage-2.1.3.12 has stable KEYWORDS and all developers have upgraded, the above mentioned repoman limitations will cease to be relevant for the transition to EAPI="1" support. For those that may wonder how an EAPI bump will affect normal users, the answer it that it should be essentially transparent for them. When emerge encounters a package with an unsupported EAPI, it automatically masks it, much like it masks a package that doesn't have compatible KEYWORDS. Users will not be able to take advantage of a packages that use the latest EAPI until they have upgraded to a version of portage that supports it. Versions of portage >=2.0.54 support EAPI="0", and if the EAPI variable is undefined then it defaults to "0". Lots of people seem to be in favor of getting this first EAPI bump done as soon as possible. Additional feedback and questions are welcome. Zac [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_148244.xml [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_148270.xml -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHBWVL/ejvha5XGaMRAvVxAKCAbSRrstmRx7XXZEee6rU7JFsnUACfdH14 SH5hWyIlBfoN2wkg0xysI1Q= =DC+1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list