From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845CB1381FB for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DAA37E07B9; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 01:59:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E3C7E07B5 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 01:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-195-43.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.195.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B66933D77F for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 01:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50DCFCEF.5050500@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:59:11 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 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] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08 References: <1356540147.20663.14.camel@localhost> <20121227143738.4d5ce2dd@pomiocik.lan> <8276365.58ylrykFZO@porto> In-Reply-To: <8276365.58ylrykFZO@porto> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: cea21f93-e80a-4c49-956f-0575544aecb9 X-Archives-Hash: 93e5e880ccf71da3f25586548164456b On 12/27/2012 03:40 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny: >> >> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all >> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new >> use.stable.mask files in those profiles. >> > > OK here's one way how we could pull option a) through. After all we have some > sort of basic versioning present in the profiles (the 10.0 part that makes no > sense otherwise). > [Note: this does not cover prefix profiles, BSD and other oddities. Need > special treatment.] > > 1) Define a new set of profiles by copying the current ones, and replacing the > 10.0 parent by a 13.0 parent. Only differences between 10.0 and 13.0: > * the EAPI, now 5, > * e.g. an additional parent profiles/base5 (for global stable mask files) > > 2) Deprecate the 10.0 profiles NOW by removing them from profiles.desc and > putting the new 13.0 profiles there. This has absolutely no effect on running > installations. It's not strictly necessary to remove them from profiles.desc, since repoman ignores them if they have a 'deprecated' file, and emerge warns any users who have a deprecated profile selected. > 3) Make a news item about removal of 10.0 profiles in a year / ${TIMESCALE}. > > 4) One ${TIMESCALE} later, remove 10.0 profiles. This is the ugly part, and > users need to be warned and prepared properly - here everyone needs an EAPI5 > capable portage. > > 5) Since now all existing profiles require EAPI 5, move that requirement to > the profile root directory. > > Comments? > Sounds good to me. -- Thanks, Zac