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 1L9wCa-00037z-G6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:36:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07030E05B9; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:36:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp12.hushmail.com (smtp12.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD486E05B9 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp12.hushmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp12.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F83A70118 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (app1.hushmail.com [65.39.178.74]) by smtp12.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:36:08 +0000 (UTC) From: "Robert R. Russell" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:36:05 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <493DB50A.8090403@jmhengen.net> In-Reply-To: <493DB50A.8090403@jmhengen.net> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: X-Archives-Salt: 79619a40-b6a6-4a4b-83e5-a4a242602543 X-Archives-Hash: a9c50447d180b91c8061d17d270ac112 On Monday 08 December 2008 06:00:10 pm Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: > This mail is about EAPI usage in the portage tree. Let me describe it, > with what happened today: I'm running a mostly stable system (91 of 1255 > installed packages are unstable), but I test here and there some > packages. On of the packages, which I installed and is currently masked > unstable, is dev-util/cmake-2.6.2. I use it on a daily basis and happy > with it so far. Today, while updating, portage wanted to downgrade cmake > to the stable release, due to all cmake 2.6.x version masked by EAPI 2. > The cmake-2.6.2 ebuild was updated to use EAPI 2 (along with fixing a > bug). My rule of thumb is to only use unstable on none system packages > > > With kind regards, > Jean-Marc Hengen, a happy gentoo user The problem is not that an EAPI 2 supporting portage is unstable or that he is using a ~arch version of one particular package, but the during a bugfix the maintainer moved the ebuild to EAPI 2 without a version bump forcing Jean-Marc to downgrade to the stable version. The question on policy is, can a maintainer upgrade an ebuild to the latest EAPI while doing some other bugfixing without a version bump? My personal opinion on this matter is pick one of the following: 1) perform the bugfix without a version bump and remain at the current EAPI version 2) perform the bugfix with a version bump and remain at the current EAPI version 3) perform the bugfix with a version bump and upgrade to the latest EAPI Options 1 and 2 are how most updates are done, the user can mask the latest version or upgrade. Option 3 allows the user to continue using the previous version while they decide to update to a portage version that supports the new EAPI. I would prefer that option 3 be made policy because I run several ~arch packages that either don't have a stable version (kradio) or have a feature that I need (gentoo-sources), and will not be pushed to stable immediately for various reasons from lack of maintainer time to everybody says it conflicts with major pieces of the system (Firefox 3, 64 bit netscape-flash, and xorg).