From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LRgLK-000727-IZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:18:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E2A1E0350; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mta-m3.tc.umn.edu (mta-m3.tc.umn.edu [134.84.135.123]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579ECE0350 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.110] (c-71-63-157-77.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [71.63.157.77]) by mta-m3.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:18:33 -0600 (CST) X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] c-71-63-157-77.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [71.63.157.77] #+TS+AU+HN Message-ID: <497E98F3.2060406@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:17:39 -0600 From: Jeremy Olexa User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090113) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles References: <497B8758.9030309@gentoo.org> <20090125210437.1e8b3fed@snowmobile> <20090126172800.GC2928@comet> <497E5F99.2020502@gentoo.org> <497E8714.2090504@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5f68a940-4180-4391-90b1-d3b067d6f4b6 X-Archives-Hash: 1ac823c29fc8e4ddb32d56cfbb52a8bd Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: >> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>>> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100 >>>>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote: >>>>>> I talked to Zac earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an >>>>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas >>>>>> and Patrick raised the concern we might >>>>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0. >>>>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p. >>>>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago >>>>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages. >>>>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can >>>>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later >>>>>> profiles/ ? >>>>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't >>>>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and >>>> Last month's meeting >>>> >>>>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see >>>>> that discussion? >>>> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage >>>> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile available so >>>> cannot emerge a new version of portage. >>>> >>>> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> profiles can use higher EAPIs. >>> Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask >>> as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1 >>> the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule >>> on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ? >> So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom and >> move on..? In that case: >> >> Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded due to >> the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait much >> longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian Harring >> suggests - I agree). >> >> I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities >> that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every >> group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't >> necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them or >> anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0 stages[1], >> 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]). > > Dude, even people like Ubuntu/Canonical don't support stuff that old > (current LTS is April 2008). > > The tree is now; see the date? It's 2009, not 2007. > > One of the biggest problems Gentoo has is backwards compatibility and > legacy stuff; it is the nightmare of every project and there has to be > a point where you say 'tough.' So make a decision, announce it widely > that on X date the tree will just break for users; write up a FAQ on > how to upgrade past it, and then make the changes. 2008.0 was released on Jul 6 2008[1]. So, you think that after 6 months, it is time to say "tough"? Sorry, I don't agree. [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/release/2008.0/index.xml#doc_chap2 > > Realize once again that the tree was not designed very well and it has > issues on a number of levels and it can't all be engineered around; > and for progress to be made you will *have to break existing stuff*. > >> IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our >> user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think the >> Council decision is appropriate. > > You seriously see no benefits to EAPI 1 or 2 in profiles? What about > slot deps? use deps? these things have been core feature requests > since 2003; surely you don't think they are useless to our users? No, I didn't say that at all, *sigh* > >> -Jeremy >> >> [1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/ >> [2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12 >> [3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans >> [4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm >>