[gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2901 bytes --]


Hi everyone, 

since Council has approved the creation of a fresh set of EAPI=5 "13.0" 
profiles, I would like to volunteer for creating them. The proposed procedure 
is outlined below in detail, and I'd be happy for comments. 
[If anything below deviates from Council decision, please tell me- not my 
intention.]

One general question comes first, though: Right now, the releases/10.0 profile 
directory does the following things:
* mask too-old portage
* set eapi
* add USE=bzip2

Is there anything unrelated to EAPI=5 that absolutely must be added to the new 
releases/13.0 directory in addition in your opinion? (Whether this is the 
right place and was the right place in the beginning for USE=bzip2 is another 
question.)

###

The procedure (all paths relative to profiles): 

1) create directory eapi-5-files, with eapi (containing 5), skeletons for 
package.stable.mask etc and a readme

2) copy releases/10.0 to releases/13.0, in releases/13.0:
* increase required portage version
* additionally inherit ../../eapi-5-files
* other changes as per question above?

3) for each arch in default/linux, 
* announce on arch alias (to prevent overlapping commits)
* copy default/linux/${arch}/10.0 to default/linux/${arch}/13.0 and 
* change inheritance in the new copy to inherit ../../../../releases/13.0 
instead of ../../../../releases/10.0
* announce on arch alias (so future changes go into 13.0 tree)
[This describes the simple case. I realize that there are differences in the 
directory structure, e.g. powerpc/ppc64/10.0, which is why this step needs 
extra care.]

4) edit profiles.desc and copy all "10.0 lines" to "13.0 lines", with an 
initial setting "dev" (if dev or stable before) or "exp" (if exp before)
This makes repoman check against the new profiles when using developer 
profiles.

5) announce the state on the dev list, urging devs to update their symlink 
manually and !test!

6) wait one / two weeks

7) in profiles.desc, mark all 13.0 profiles stable that were stable in 10.0, 
and remove the lines for the 10.0 profiles. This makes eselect profile now 
only offer the new ones, and repoman test by default against 13.0 profiles.

8) mark all 10.0 profiles as deprecated by creating a "deprecated" file 
(containing the replacement suggestion) in the directory. This makes portage 
warn users to upgrade (suggesting a new profile for them), and repoman ignore 
the 10.0 profiles.

9) long waiting time as decided by Council

###

Everything that does NOT use/inherit 10.0 will remain unaffected, and whoever 
responsible may have to take care of that some time before (in step 10) the 
main profile directory becomes EAPI=5. This means e.g. hardened, ulibc, prefix 
or bsd.

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3428 bytes --]

[CC'ing this to core so noone can complain afterwards.]

Since 48h did not lead to any responses positive or negative, I'll start 
implementing the procedure as given in the original e-mail (quoted below).

As also said below, each arch will get a mail before I touch their profile 
tree and after I've finished.

Cheers, Andreas


Am Samstag, 12. Januar 2013, 21:47:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> since Council has approved the creation of a fresh set of EAPI=5 "13.0"
> profiles, I would like to volunteer for creating them. The proposed
> procedure is outlined below in detail, and I'd be happy for comments.
> [If anything below deviates from Council decision, please tell me- not my
> intention.]
> 
> One general question comes first, though: Right now, the releases/10.0
> profile directory does the following things:
> * mask too-old portage
> * set eapi
> * add USE=bzip2
> 
> Is there anything unrelated to EAPI=5 that absolutely must be added to the
> new releases/13.0 directory in addition in your opinion? (Whether this is
> the right place and was the right place in the beginning for USE=bzip2 is
> another question.)
> 
> ###
> 
> The procedure (all paths relative to profiles):
> 
> 1) create directory eapi-5-files, with eapi (containing 5), skeletons for
> package.stable.mask etc and a readme
> 
> 2) copy releases/10.0 to releases/13.0, in releases/13.0:
> * increase required portage version
> * additionally inherit ../../eapi-5-files
> * other changes as per question above?
> 
> 3) for each arch in default/linux,
> * announce on arch alias (to prevent overlapping commits)
> * copy default/linux/${arch}/10.0 to default/linux/${arch}/13.0 and
> * change inheritance in the new copy to inherit ../../../../releases/13.0
> instead of ../../../../releases/10.0
> * announce on arch alias (so future changes go into 13.0 tree)
> [This describes the simple case. I realize that there are differences in
> the directory structure, e.g. powerpc/ppc64/10.0, which is why this step
> needs extra care.]
> 
> 4) edit profiles.desc and copy all "10.0 lines" to "13.0 lines", with an
> initial setting "dev" (if dev or stable before) or "exp" (if exp before)
> This makes repoman check against the new profiles when using developer
> profiles.
> 
> 5) announce the state on the dev list, urging devs to update their symlink
> manually and !test!
> 
> 6) wait one / two weeks
> 
> 7) in profiles.desc, mark all 13.0 profiles stable that were stable in
> 10.0, and remove the lines for the 10.0 profiles. This makes eselect
> profile now only offer the new ones, and repoman test by default against
> 13.0 profiles.
> 
> 8) mark all 10.0 profiles as deprecated by creating a "deprecated" file
> (containing the replacement suggestion) in the directory. This makes
> portage warn users to upgrade (suggesting a new profile for them), and
> repoman ignore the 10.0 profiles.
> 
> 9) long waiting time as decided by Council
> 
> ###
> 
> Everything that does NOT use/inherit 10.0 will remain unaffected, and
> whoever responsible may have to take care of that some time before (in
> step 10) the main profile directory becomes EAPI=5. This means e.g.
> hardened, ulibc, prefix or bsd.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Ultrabug]

Thanks for your work mate !

On 14/01/2013 21:24, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> [CC'ing this to core so noone can complain afterwards.]
>
> Since 48h did not lead to any responses positive or negative, I'll start
> implementing the procedure as given in the original e-mail (quoted below).
>
> As also said below, each arch will get a mail before I touch their profile
> tree and after I've finished.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
> Am Samstag, 12. Januar 2013, 21:47:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> since Council has approved the creation of a fresh set of EAPI=5 "13.0"
>> profiles, I would like to volunteer for creating them. The proposed
>> procedure is outlined below in detail, and I'd be happy for comments.
>> [If anything below deviates from Council decision, please tell me- not my
>> intention.]
>>
>> One general question comes first, though: Right now, the releases/10.0
>> profile directory does the following things:
>> * mask too-old portage
>> * set eapi
>> * add USE=bzip2
>>
>> Is there anything unrelated to EAPI=5 that absolutely must be added to the
>> new releases/13.0 directory in addition in your opinion? (Whether this is
>> the right place and was the right place in the beginning for USE=bzip2 is
>> another question.)
>>
>> ###
>>
>> The procedure (all paths relative to profiles):
>>
>> 1) create directory eapi-5-files, with eapi (containing 5), skeletons for
>> package.stable.mask etc and a readme
>>
>> 2) copy releases/10.0 to releases/13.0, in releases/13.0:
>> * increase required portage version
>> * additionally inherit ../../eapi-5-files
>> * other changes as per question above?
>>
>> 3) for each arch in default/linux,
>> * announce on arch alias (to prevent overlapping commits)
>> * copy default/linux/${arch}/10.0 to default/linux/${arch}/13.0 and
>> * change inheritance in the new copy to inherit ../../../../releases/13.0
>> instead of ../../../../releases/10.0
>> * announce on arch alias (so future changes go into 13.0 tree)
>> [This describes the simple case. I realize that there are differences in
>> the directory structure, e.g. powerpc/ppc64/10.0, which is why this step
>> needs extra care.]
>>
>> 4) edit profiles.desc and copy all "10.0 lines" to "13.0 lines", with an
>> initial setting "dev" (if dev or stable before) or "exp" (if exp before)
>> This makes repoman check against the new profiles when using developer
>> profiles.
>>
>> 5) announce the state on the dev list, urging devs to update their symlink
>> manually and !test!
>>
>> 6) wait one / two weeks
>>
>> 7) in profiles.desc, mark all 13.0 profiles stable that were stable in
>> 10.0, and remove the lines for the 10.0 profiles. This makes eselect
>> profile now only offer the new ones, and repoman test by default against
>> 13.0 profiles.
>>
>> 8) mark all 10.0 profiles as deprecated by creating a "deprecated" file
>> (containing the replacement suggestion) in the directory. This makes
>> portage warn users to upgrade (suggesting a new profile for them), and
>> repoman ignore the 10.0 profiles.
>>
>> 9) long waiting time as decided by Council
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Everything that does NOT use/inherit 10.0 will remain unaffected, and
>> whoever responsible may have to take care of that some time before (in
>> step 10) the main profile directory becomes EAPI=5. This means e.g.
>> hardened, ulibc, prefix or bsd.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Michael Weber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01/12/2013 09:47 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 

10) add "13" to the selectable Versions in Bugzilla.
Not that anybody cares, but 10 and 10.1 are in there.

Maybe we could drop these values (dropping the field might need a
change in the code) to reduce the number of selection a
newbie reporter is faced.

- -- 
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD5KUQACgkQknrdDGLu8JBmIwD/QGdNkWVAM5JsIDIXV9SGyNeC
lkxm02p8qpbnCE+ZAuYA/3Gdf9xh6OMcCz5OAuTNnUcNrJ5JhtFMPBodqOC9lF0b
=9c48
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Markos Chandras]

On 18 January 2013 10:51, Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01/12/2013 09:47 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>
> 10) add "13" to the selectable Versions in Bugzilla.
> Not that anybody cares, but 10 and 10.1 are in there.
>
> Maybe we could drop these values (dropping the field might need a
> change in the code) to reduce the number of selection a
> newbie reporter is faced.

Yeah this field is not used (properly) and it should be removed.
Usually a bug in one profile, is also present in other
profiles as well.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

[gentoo-dev] Re: New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Michael Palimaka]

On 18/01/2013 21:51, Michael Weber wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01/12/2013 09:47 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>
> 10) add "13" to the selectable Versions in Bugzilla.
> Not that anybody cares, but 10 and 10.1 are in there.
>
> Maybe we could drop these values (dropping the field might need a
> change in the code) to reduce the number of selection a
> newbie reporter is faced.
>
> - --
> Michael Weber
> Gentoo Developer
> web: https://xmw.de/
> mailto: Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlD5KUQACgkQknrdDGLu8JBmIwD/QGdNkWVAM5JsIDIXV9SGyNeC
> lkxm02p8qpbnCE+ZAuYA/3Gdf9xh6OMcCz5OAuTNnUcNrJ5JhtFMPBodqOC9lF0b
> =9c48
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
+1

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3603 bytes --]


FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now all 
with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request developer 
profile checking). 

This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5) now.

Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new 
profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me (or 
tell me if I'm around).

If all goes well, we'll continue in a week. 

Cheers, 
Andreas

Am Samstag, 12. Januar 2013, 21:47:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> since Council has approved the creation of a fresh set of EAPI=5 "13.0"
> profiles, I would like to volunteer for creating them. The proposed
> procedure is outlined below in detail, and I'd be happy for comments.
> [If anything below deviates from Council decision, please tell me- not my
> intention.]
> 
> One general question comes first, though: Right now, the releases/10.0
> profile directory does the following things:
> * mask too-old portage
> * set eapi
> * add USE=bzip2
> 
> Is there anything unrelated to EAPI=5 that absolutely must be added to the
> new releases/13.0 directory in addition in your opinion? (Whether this is
> the right place and was the right place in the beginning for USE=bzip2 is
> another question.)
> 
> ###
> 
> The procedure (all paths relative to profiles):
> 
> 1) create directory eapi-5-files, with eapi (containing 5), skeletons for
> package.stable.mask etc and a readme
> 
> 2) copy releases/10.0 to releases/13.0, in releases/13.0:
> * increase required portage version
> * additionally inherit ../../eapi-5-files
> * other changes as per question above?
> 
> 3) for each arch in default/linux,
> * announce on arch alias (to prevent overlapping commits)
> * copy default/linux/${arch}/10.0 to default/linux/${arch}/13.0 and
> * change inheritance in the new copy to inherit ../../../../releases/13.0
> instead of ../../../../releases/10.0
> * announce on arch alias (so future changes go into 13.0 tree)
> [This describes the simple case. I realize that there are differences in
> the directory structure, e.g. powerpc/ppc64/10.0, which is why this step
> needs extra care.]
> 
> 4) edit profiles.desc and copy all "10.0 lines" to "13.0 lines", with an
> initial setting "dev" (if dev or stable before) or "exp" (if exp before)
> This makes repoman check against the new profiles when using developer
> profiles.
> 
> 5) announce the state on the dev list, urging devs to update their symlink
> manually and !test!
> 
> 6) wait one / two weeks
> 
> 7) in profiles.desc, mark all 13.0 profiles stable that were stable in
> 10.0, and remove the lines for the 10.0 profiles. This makes eselect
> profile now only offer the new ones, and repoman test by default against
> 13.0 profiles.
> 
> 8) mark all 10.0 profiles as deprecated by creating a "deprecated" file
> (containing the replacement suggestion) in the directory. This makes
> portage warn users to upgrade (suggesting a new profile for them), and
> repoman ignore the 10.0 profiles.
> 
> 9) long waiting time as decided by Council
> 
> ###
> 
> Everything that does NOT use/inherit 10.0 will remain unaffected, and
> whoever responsible may have to take care of that some time before (in
> step 10) the main profile directory becomes EAPI=5. This means e.g.
> hardened, ulibc, prefix or bsd.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:37:10 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now all 
> with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request developer 
> profile checking). 
> 
> This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5) now.
> 
> Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new 
> profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me (or 
> tell me if I'm around).
> 
> If all goes well, we'll continue in a week. 

Hmm, I think we need a bit more fine-grained EAPI=5 directories, at
least for arch-specific unmasks. Not sure if I shall use the
arch-specific 13.0 profiles or something more common shall be
introduced.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]

Am Freitag, 18. Januar 2013, 23:20:50 schrieben Sie:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:37:10 +0100
> 
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for
> > now all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you
> > request developer profile checking).
> > 
> > This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5)
> > now.
> > 
> > Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the
> > new profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it
> > to me (or tell me if I'm around).
> > 
> > If all goes well, we'll continue in a week.
> 
> Hmm, I think we need a bit more fine-grained EAPI=5 directories, at
> least for arch-specific unmasks. Not sure if I shall use the
> arch-specific 13.0 profiles or something more common shall be
> introduced.

I think it's perfectly fine now to raise the EAPI to 5 anywhere in the profile 
trees that (also) inherit 13.0 (since they need it anyway). 

So, in my opinion, we can just do that wherever needed. 

The intention of the "eapi-5-files" directory is just to hold the files that 
will be moved into global scale once the old profiles are gone.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1725 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:47:09 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Freitag, 18. Januar 2013, 23:20:50 schrieben Sie:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:37:10 +0100
> > 
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for
> > > now all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you
> > > request developer profile checking).
> > > 
> > > This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5)
> > > now.
> > > 
> > > Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the
> > > new profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it
> > > to me (or tell me if I'm around).
> > > 
> > > If all goes well, we'll continue in a week.
> > 
> > Hmm, I think we need a bit more fine-grained EAPI=5 directories, at
> > least for arch-specific unmasks. Not sure if I shall use the
> > arch-specific 13.0 profiles or something more common shall be
> > introduced.
> 
> I think it's perfectly fine now to raise the EAPI to 5 anywhere in the profile 
> trees that (also) inherit 13.0 (since they need it anyway). 
> 
> So, in my opinion, we can just do that wherever needed. 
> 
> The intention of the "eapi-5-files" directory is just to hold the files that 
> will be moved into global scale once the old profiles are gone.

Well, in this particular case I'm wondering if there shouldn't be
a similar solution for the arch/*. In other words arch/*/eapi-5-files
which will be moved to main arch scope once the old profiles are gone.

But I guess we could just move the files from default/linux/*/13.0.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

Just to keep everyone updated, ...

> FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now
> all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request
> developer profile checking).
> 
> This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5)
> now.
> 
> Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new
> profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me
> (or tell me if I'm around).
> 
> If all goes well, we'll continue in a week.
> 

A small bug in repoman turned up when testing the EAPI=5 profiles, and 
therefore we will wait for the next stable portage version before the 10.0 
profiles are deprecated. So, another 3-4 weeks to go maybe.

[The only alternative would be to require all devs to run at least ~arch 
portage, since the bug only affects repoman, not emerge.]

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 00:26 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> Just to keep everyone updated, ...
> 
> > FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now
> > all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request
> > developer profile checking).
> > 
> > This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5)
> > now.
> > 
> > Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new
> > profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me
> > (or tell me if I'm around).
> > 
> > If all goes well, we'll continue in a week.
> > 
> 
> A small bug in repoman turned up when testing the EAPI=5 profiles, and 
> therefore we will wait for the next stable portage version before the 10.0 
> profiles are deprecated. So, another 3-4 weeks to go maybe.
> 
> [The only alternative would be to require all devs to run at least ~arch 
> portage, since the bug only affects repoman, not emerge.]
> 
> Cheers, 
> Andreas
> 

Maybe other option would be to have a portage version like current
stable + repoman fix and fast stabilize as soon as possible 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Zac Medico]

On 01/27/2013 03:26 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 00:26 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>> Just to keep everyone updated, ...
>>
>>> FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now
>>> all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request
>>> developer profile checking).
>>>
>>> This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5)
>>> now.
>>>
>>> Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new
>>> profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me
>>> (or tell me if I'm around).
>>>
>>> If all goes well, we'll continue in a week.
>>>
>>
>> A small bug in repoman turned up when testing the EAPI=5 profiles, and 
>> therefore we will wait for the next stable portage version before the 10.0 
>> profiles are deprecated. So, another 3-4 weeks to go maybe.
>>
>> [The only alternative would be to require all devs to run at least ~arch 
>> portage, since the bug only affects repoman, not emerge.]
>>
>> Cheers, 
>> Andreas
>>
> 
> Maybe other option would be to have a portage version like current
> stable + repoman fix and fast stabilize as soon as possible 

I think the latest portage release (2.1.11.50) should be fine. It has
lots of other fixes that will be nice to have in stable. I plan to file
a stable request in about 1.5 weeks.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1622 bytes --]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:26:38 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Just to keep everyone updated, ...
> 
> > FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now
> > all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request
> > developer profile checking).
> > 
> > This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5)
> > now.
> > 
> > Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new
> > profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me
> > (or tell me if I'm around).
> > 
> > If all goes well, we'll continue in a week.
> > 
> 
> A small bug in repoman turned up when testing the EAPI=5 profiles, and 
> therefore we will wait for the next stable portage version before the 10.0 
> profiles are deprecated. So, another 3-4 weeks to go maybe.
> 
> [The only alternative would be to require all devs to run at least ~arch 
> portage, since the bug only affects repoman, not emerge.]

To be honest, I don't think this is really a blocker to deprecating
the old profiles, unless you're talking about other bug than the one I
filed.

That bug just caused repoman to error about unstable dependencies when
flags were stable-masked. This just means that developers with old
repoman won't be able to commit stable ebuilds using stable-masked
flags. Note that using the old profiles workarounds the issue through
having those flags completely masked and therefore devs having no
repoman checks on their dependencies at all...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3601 bytes --]


For your information, in the default/linux tree
* all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same way as 
10.0 was
* all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
* all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated

IMHO the waiting time of 1 year decided by Council starts now before we can 
remove the 10.0 trees.

Maintainers of profiles outside default/linux (e.g. hardened and prefix), 
please take care of the migration to EAPI=5 on your own.

Everyone else, have fun! :)



Am Samstag, 12. Januar 2013, 21:47:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> since Council has approved the creation of a fresh set of EAPI=5 "13.0"
> profiles, I would like to volunteer for creating them. The proposed
> procedure is outlined below in detail, and I'd be happy for comments.
> [If anything below deviates from Council decision, please tell me- not my
> intention.]
> 
> One general question comes first, though: Right now, the releases/10.0
> profile directory does the following things:
> * mask too-old portage
> * set eapi
> * add USE=bzip2
> 
> Is there anything unrelated to EAPI=5 that absolutely must be added to the
> new releases/13.0 directory in addition in your opinion? (Whether this is
> the right place and was the right place in the beginning for USE=bzip2 is
> another question.)
> 
> ###
> 
> The procedure (all paths relative to profiles):
> 
> 1) create directory eapi-5-files, with eapi (containing 5), skeletons for
> package.stable.mask etc and a readme
> 
> 2) copy releases/10.0 to releases/13.0, in releases/13.0:
> * increase required portage version
> * additionally inherit ../../eapi-5-files
> * other changes as per question above?
> 
> 3) for each arch in default/linux,
> * announce on arch alias (to prevent overlapping commits)
> * copy default/linux/${arch}/10.0 to default/linux/${arch}/13.0 and
> * change inheritance in the new copy to inherit ../../../../releases/13.0
> instead of ../../../../releases/10.0
> * announce on arch alias (so future changes go into 13.0 tree)
> [This describes the simple case. I realize that there are differences in
> the directory structure, e.g. powerpc/ppc64/10.0, which is why this step
> needs extra care.]
> 
> 4) edit profiles.desc and copy all "10.0 lines" to "13.0 lines", with an
> initial setting "dev" (if dev or stable before) or "exp" (if exp before)
> This makes repoman check against the new profiles when using developer
> profiles.
> 
> 5) announce the state on the dev list, urging devs to update their symlink
> manually and !test!
> 
> 6) wait one / two weeks
> 
> 7) in profiles.desc, mark all 13.0 profiles stable that were stable in
> 10.0, and remove the lines for the 10.0 profiles. This makes eselect
> profile now only offer the new ones, and repoman test by default against
> 13.0 profiles.
> 
> 8) mark all 10.0 profiles as deprecated by creating a "deprecated" file
> (containing the replacement suggestion) in the directory. This makes
> portage warn users to upgrade (suggesting a new profile for them), and
> repoman ignore the 10.0 profiles.
> 
> 9) long waiting time as decided by Council
> 
> ###
> 
> Everything that does NOT use/inherit 10.0 will remain unaffected, and
> whoever responsible may have to take care of that some time before (in
> step 10) the main profile directory becomes EAPI=5. This means e.g.
> hardened, ulibc, prefix or bsd.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Douglas Freed]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 453 bytes --]

> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same way
as
> 10.0 was
> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
> * all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated

Suggestion: perhaps a news item should be created for the migration to the
new profiles?  As a Gentoo user who just got a giant red warning from
portage that his active profile was deprecated, I feel like many people are
going to be confused about this.

-Doug

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 535 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Ben de Groot]

On 10 February 2013 10:43, Douglas Freed <dwfreed@mtu.edu> wrote:
>> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same way
>> as
>> 10.0 was
>> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
>> * all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated
>
> Suggestion: perhaps a news item should be created for the migration to the
> new profiles?  As a Gentoo user who just got a giant red warning from
> portage that his active profile was deprecated, I feel like many people are
> going to be confused about this.
>
> -Doug

Obviously a news item should precede any deprecation of stable profiles.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

On Feb 10, 2013 8:32 AM, "Ben de Groot" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 10 February 2013 10:43, Douglas Freed <dwfreed@mtu.edu> wrote:
> >> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the same
way
> >> as
> >> 10.0 was
> >> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
> >> * all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated
> >
> > Suggestion: perhaps a news item should be created for the migration to
the
> > new profiles?  As a Gentoo user who just got a giant red warning from
> > portage that his active profile was deprecated, I feel like many people
are
> > going to be confused about this.
> >
> > -Doug
>
> Obviously a news item should precede any deprecation of stable profiles.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Ben | yngwin
> Gentoo developer
> Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
>

I think it is too late now. The big red warning is already there.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1238 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 14:34:14 schrieb Markos Chandras:
> > > new profiles?  As a Gentoo user who just got a giant red warning from
> > > portage that his active profile was deprecated, I feel like many people
> > > are going to be confused about this.
> > 
> > Obviously a news item should precede any deprecation of stable profiles.
> > 
> 
> I think it is too late now. The big red warning is already there.

To be honest I did not really see the necessity since the "big red warning" 
exactly tells you what to do (and even which profile to pick, which would be 
more complicated in a news item). 

Then again, that's a matter of personal preference, too.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Markos Chandras]

On 10 February 2013 14:06, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 14:34:14 schrieb Markos Chandras:
>> > > new profiles?  As a Gentoo user who just got a giant red warning from
>> > > portage that his active profile was deprecated, I feel like many people
>> > > are going to be confused about this.
>> >
>> > Obviously a news item should precede any deprecation of stable profiles.
>> >
>>
>> I think it is too late now. The big red warning is already there.
>
> To be honest I did not really see the necessity since the "big red warning"
> exactly tells you what to do (and even which profile to pick, which would be
> more complicated in a news item).
>
> Then again, that's a matter of personal preference, too.
>
> --
>
> Andreas K. Huettel
> Gentoo Linux developer
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>

I suspect most people are interested in understanding what changed
(since deprecation means that the new thing is better than the old
one). Moreover, the news item is another way to assure them that
everything is not as bad as the initial "red warning" might had made
them think so and "keep calm and use Gentoo" ;-)

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

News item (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2791 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 15:15:43 schrieb Markos Chandras:> 
> I suspect most people are interested in understanding what changed
> (since deprecation means that the new thing is better than the old
> one). Moreover, the news item is another way to assure them that
> everything is not as bad as the initial "red warning" might had made
> them think so and "keep calm and use Gentoo" ;-)

OK, here's a news item (actually two, separate for server and non-server 
profiles). Since it's a bit late now, I'll commit this or the improved version 
after discussion here in 6h (21:00 UTC) unless there are severe protests.

-- the non-server profile variant (sparing you a lot of Display-If-Profile 
lines)

Title: New 13.0 profiles and deprecation of 10.0 profiles
Author: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-02-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0/desktop
[...]
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop/kde
Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/developer

We have generated a new set of profiles for Gentoo installation. These are now 
called 13.0 instead of 10.0. Everyone should upgrade as soon as possible (but 
please make sure sys-apps/portage is updated to current stable *before* you
switch profile).
This brings (nearly) no user-visible changes. Some new files have been added
to the profile directories that make it possible for the developers to do more 
fine-grained use flag masking (see PMS-5 for the details), and this formally 
requires a new profile tree with EAPI=5.

-- the server profile variant (sparing you the headers entirely)

We have generated a new set of profiles for Gentoo installation. These are now
called 13.0 instead of 10.0. Everyone should upgrade as soon as possible (but
please make sure sys-apps/portage is updated to current stable *before* you
switch profile).
This brings (nearly) no user-visible changes. Some new files have been added
to the profile directories that make it possible for the developers to do more
fine-grained use flag masking (see PMS-5 for the details), and this formally
requires a new profile tree with EAPI=5.
In the course of this change, the "server" profiles will be removed; they do
not exist in the 13.0 tree anymore. You should migrate to the corresponding
parent profile. This may change the default value of some use-flags. The
specific setting in "server" was 
  USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
You may want to check the setting of these flags after switching profile, but
otherwise nothing changes.




-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: News item (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations)

[Ben de Groot]

On 10 February 2013 23:02, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 15:15:43 schrieb Markos Chandras:>
>> I suspect most people are interested in understanding what changed
>> (since deprecation means that the new thing is better than the old
>> one). Moreover, the news item is another way to assure them that
>> everything is not as bad as the initial "red warning" might had made
>> them think so and "keep calm and use Gentoo" ;-)
>
> OK, here's a news item (actually two, separate for server and non-server
> profiles). Since it's a bit late now, I'll commit this or the improved version
> after discussion here in 6h (21:00 UTC) unless there are severe protests.
>
> -- the non-server profile variant (sparing you a lot of Display-If-Profile
> lines)
>
> Title: New 13.0 profiles and deprecation of 10.0 profiles
> Author: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2013-02-10
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0/desktop
> [...]
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop/kde
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/developer
>
> We have generated a new set of profiles for Gentoo installation. These are now
> called 13.0 instead of 10.0. Everyone should upgrade as soon as possible (but
> please make sure sys-apps/portage is updated to current stable *before* you
> switch profile).
> This brings (nearly) no user-visible changes. Some new files have been added
> to the profile directories that make it possible for the developers to do more
> fine-grained use flag masking (see PMS-5 for the details), and this formally
> requires a new profile tree with EAPI=5.
>
> -- the server profile variant (sparing you the headers entirely)
>
> We have generated a new set of profiles for Gentoo installation. These are now
> called 13.0 instead of 10.0. Everyone should upgrade as soon as possible (but
> please make sure sys-apps/portage is updated to current stable *before* you
> switch profile).
> This brings (nearly) no user-visible changes. Some new files have been added
> to the profile directories that make it possible for the developers to do more
> fine-grained use flag masking (see PMS-5 for the details), and this formally
> requires a new profile tree with EAPI=5.
> In the course of this change, the "server" profiles will be removed; they do
> not exist in the 13.0 tree anymore. You should migrate to the corresponding
> parent profile. This may change the default value of some use-flags. The
> specific setting in "server" was
>   USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
> You may want to check the setting of these flags after switching profile, but
> otherwise nothing changes.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Andreas K. Huettel
> Gentoo Linux developer
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>

Looks good to me!

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: News item (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations)

[Markos Chandras]

On 10 February 2013 15:02, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 15:15:43 schrieb Markos Chandras:>
>> I suspect most people are interested in understanding what changed
>> (since deprecation means that the new thing is better than the old
>> one). Moreover, the news item is another way to assure them that
>> everything is not as bad as the initial "red warning" might had made
>> them think so and "keep calm and use Gentoo" ;-)
>
> OK, here's a news item (actually two, separate for server and non-server
> profiles). Since it's a bit late now, I'll commit this or the improved version
> after discussion here in 6h (21:00 UTC) unless there are severe protests.
>
> -- the non-server profile variant (sparing you a lot of Display-If-Profile
> lines)
>
> Title: New 13.0 profiles and deprecation of 10.0 profiles
> Author: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2013-02-10
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/alpha/10.0/desktop
> [...]
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop/kde
> Display-If-Profile: default/linux/x86/10.0/developer
>
> We have generated a new set of profiles for Gentoo installation. These are now
> called 13.0 instead of 10.0. Everyone should upgrade as soon as possible (but
> please make sure sys-apps/portage is updated to current stable *before* you
> switch profile).
> This brings (nearly) no user-visible changes. Some new files have been added
> to the profile directories that make it possible for the developers to do more
> fine-grained use flag masking (see PMS-5 for the details), and this formally
> requires a new profile tree with EAPI=5.
>
> -- the server profile variant (sparing you the headers entirely)
>
> We have generated a new set of profiles for Gentoo installation. These are now
> called 13.0 instead of 10.0. Everyone should upgrade as soon as possible (but
> please make sure sys-apps/portage is updated to current stable *before* you
> switch profile).
> This brings (nearly) no user-visible changes. Some new files have been added
> to the profile directories that make it possible for the developers to do more
> fine-grained use flag masking (see PMS-5 for the details), and this formally
> requires a new profile tree with EAPI=5.
> In the course of this change, the "server" profiles will be removed; they do
> not exist in the 13.0 tree anymore. You should migrate to the corresponding
> parent profile. This may change the default value of some use-flags. The
> specific setting in "server" was
>   USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
> You may want to check the setting of these flags after switching profile, but
> otherwise nothing changes.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Andreas K. Huettel
> Gentoo Linux developer
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>

Looks good to me. Thanks

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: News item (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 847 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 16:02:55 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 15:15:43 schrieb Markos Chandras:>
> 
> > I suspect most people are interested in understanding what changed
> > (since deprecation means that the new thing is better than the old
> > one). Moreover, the news item is another way to assure them that
> > everything is not as bad as the initial "red warning" might had made
> > them think so and "keep calm and use Gentoo" ;-)
> 
> OK, here's a news item (actually two, separate for server and non-server
> profiles). Since it's a bit late now, I'll commit this or the improved
> version after discussion here in 6h (21:00 UTC) unless there are severe
> protests.
> 

And pushed.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item

[James Cloos]

Since I just sent a why to post a news item note, that exactly covers
things.

Thanks!

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Patrick Nagel]

Hi,

On 2013-02-10 22:06, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 14:34:14 schrieb Markos Chandras:
>>>> new profiles?  As a Gentoo user who just got a giant red warning from
>>>> portage that his active profile was deprecated, I feel like many people
>>>> are going to be confused about this.
>>>
>>> Obviously a news item should precede any deprecation of stable profiles.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is too late now. The big red warning is already there.
> 
> To be honest I did not really see the necessity since the "big red warning" 
> exactly tells you what to do (and even which profile to pick, which would be 
> more complicated in a news item). 
> 
> Then again, that's a matter of personal preference, too.

Actually, if you could add a note that before switching to the new profile,
you should update portage if it's old, that would be even more user-friendly:

I just saw the big red warning on a not-so-well-maintained Gentoo box today,
switched to the new profile, and then portage would only do read-only
operations. So I had to figure out how to change the profile back manually
(because the old profile also isn't shown in eselect anymore), before I
could update portage and then switch to the new profile again.

Patrick.

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 378 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013, 15:59:57 schrieb Patrick Nagel:

> 
> Actually, if you could add a note that before switching to the new profile,
> you should update portage if it's old, that would be even more
> user-friendly:
> 

Already done, see separate mail...

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "AKH" == Andreas K Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> writes:

AKH> To be honest I did not really see the necessity since the "big red
AKH> warning" exactly tells you what to do (and even which profile to
AKH> pick, which would be more complicated in a news item).

But it doesn't tell one why the change was made, what differences to
expect once it is done.

What does:

diff -uNr profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/eapi profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0/eapi
--- profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/eapi 2009-08-17 14:54:00.000000000 -0400
+++ profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0/eapi 2013-01-20 06:31:02.000000000 -0500
@@ -1 +1 @@
-2
+5

actually *do* to one's system?

A useful news item would have explained what was changing, why it was
done, and what to expect once one makes the change.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:06:39 -0500
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:

> >>>>> "AKH" == Andreas K Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> AKH> To be honest I did not really see the necessity since the "big red
> AKH> warning" exactly tells you what to do (and even which profile to
> AKH> pick, which would be more complicated in a news item).
> 
> But it doesn't tell one why the change was made, what differences to
> expect once it is done.
> 
> What does:
> 
> diff -uNr profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/eapi profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0/eapi
> --- profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/eapi 2009-08-17 14:54:00.000000000 -0400
> +++ profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0/eapi 2013-01-20 06:31:02.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1 +1 @@
> -2
> +5
> 
> actually *do* to one's system?

Out of curiosity, does portage suggest switching to the new profiles
even if it doesn't support its EAPI?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 378 bytes --]

Am Montag, 11. Februar 2013, 00:34:19 schrieb Michał Górny:

> > 
> > actually *do* to one's system?
> 
> Out of curiosity, does portage suggest switching to the new profiles
> even if it doesn't support its EAPI?

Unfortunately, it seems yes. (Feature request?)

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Zac Medico]

On 02/10/2013 03:45 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag, 11. Februar 2013, 00:34:19 schrieb Michał Górny:
> 
>>>
>>> actually *do* to one's system?
>>
>> Out of curiosity, does portage suggest switching to the new profiles
>> even if it doesn't support its EAPI?
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems yes. (Feature request?)

It's possible to include additional instructions in the deprecated file.
All lines after the first one as upgrade instructions.

For future portage versions, I've fixed it to behavior better:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=34d8c817080f34f1a0b44cf05b99beacfc0d6314

This fix updates the profile deprecation warning to look like this:

!!! Your current profile is deprecated and not supported anymore.
!!! Use eselect profile to update your profile.
!!! Please upgrade to the following profile if possible:
        default/linux/x86/13.0/desktop

!!! Unable to parse profile:
'/usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/x86/13.0/desktop'
!!! ParseError: Profile contains unsupported EAPI '5':
'/usr/portage/profiles/eapi-5-files/eapi'

 * You must update portage before you can migrate to the above profile.
 * In order to update portage, run 'emerge --oneshot portage'.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Zac Medico]

On 02/10/2013 03:34 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:06:39 -0500
> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> "AKH" == Andreas K Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> writes:
>>
>> AKH> To be honest I did not really see the necessity since the "big red
>> AKH> warning" exactly tells you what to do (and even which profile to
>> AKH> pick, which would be more complicated in a news item).
>>
>> But it doesn't tell one why the change was made, what differences to
>> expect once it is done.
>>
>> What does:
>>
>> diff -uNr profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/eapi profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0/eapi
>> --- profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/eapi 2009-08-17 14:54:00.000000000 -0400
>> +++ profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0/eapi 2013-01-20 06:31:02.000000000 -0500
>> @@ -1 +1 @@
>> -2
>> +5
>>
>> actually *do* to one's system?
> 
> Out of curiosity, does portage suggest switching to the new profiles
> even if it doesn't support its EAPI?

Yes, although it's possible to include additional instructions in the
deprecated file, as you can see in the code here:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=blob_plain;f=pym/portage/package/ebuild/deprecated_profile_check.py;h=2acf8e3c2e189eb76cfda2ad4743ce238fc81230;hb=HEAD

It interprets all lines after the first one as upgrade instructions.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Re: New, shiny EAPI=5 profiles: volunteer, procedure, preparations

[Duncan]

Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:29:45 +0100 as excerpted:

> For your information, in the default/linux tree
> * all 13.0 profiles have been created and are marked stable the
> same way as 10.0 was
> * all 10.0 profiles have been removed from profiles.desc
> * all 10.0 profiles have been deprecated

Just because it sometimes doesn't get said enough and I don't see anyone 
else posted it yet...

Thank you. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman