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 1LbMKo-0006fS-7x for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:58:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 381ADE01F9; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp03.tky.fi (smtp03.tky.fi [82.130.63.73]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8177E01F9 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.209] ([82.130.46.209]) by smtp03.tky.fi (SMSSMTP 4.1.9.35) with SMTP id M2009022223575931850 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:57:59 +0200 Message-ID: <49A1CA6D.5050707@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:58:05 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090111 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 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] Suggestion for next bugday: Mass use deps migration References: <499EE087.1030802@gentoo.org> <200902222234.25275.carlo@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200902222234.25275.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://users.tkk.fi/~praty/public.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig35908F04902065337734CDCA" X-Archives-Salt: 02d1c77b-10b5-4849-b00a-2e8e0eea3f22 X-Archives-Hash: 0592e08d5d09ffcf21bba978c28f00a4 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig35908F04902065337734CDCA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Freitag, 20. Februar 2009, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >> Suggestions/objections? >=20 > If you mean by "mass migration" doing that more or less blindly, I do o= bject.=20 > When an ebuild directly or indirectly inherits an eclass, which is EAPI= 2=20 > enabled, like base.eclass, while another isn't, you have to expect=20 > side-effects. See for example media-tv/kdetv-0.8.9-r1, which features a= n=20 > empty src_prepare to prevent the attempt to apply patches twice, tempor= arily. >=20 > So the first step is to get all eclasses EAPI 2 ready and even then I w= ouldn't=20 > rule out odd cases, so changes should happen in testing and revised ebu= ilds=20 > exclusively to assure odd cases get caught. >=20 >=20 > Carsten Yes of course not without testing the packages. The point here was also that if you are maintaining something do the change yourself before the next bug day. Even if the eclasses are not EAPI 2 ready you can work around it in the ebuild by for example those empty functions. Regards, Petteri --------------enig35908F04902065337734CDCA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmhym0ACgkQcxLzpIGCsLT+HwCfRdcWwU5zIbEPj7nZWCcTmN63 JdQAnAziGn3hUGh4r594DpRqbq69eTUl =hrdl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig35908F04902065337734CDCA--