Robert R. Russell wrote: > > 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. >
The current policy states that ebuilds should only be bumped if the installed files change. Changing EAPI from 1 to 2 has no effect outside the vdb so the current policy means developers should use option 3. There was a bug in stable Portage when EAPI 2 went in the tree that made Portage stack trace but that's a problem with Portage not with the policy in general. > 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). > Why should we prefer making it a little bit easier for stable users over making ~arch users needlessly recompile stuff? Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
