Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> posted 4a0dd0ed.1070...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 23:30:37 +0300:
> Indeed there's no problem switching EAPIs as long as a stable Portage > supports the EAPI you are migrating to. Portage was buggy with this when > EAPI 2 was introduced but that has since been fixed. The case at hand is EAPI-0 > EAPI-1. I've no opinion there. However, just this last week I tracked down and provided a patch for an EAPI-0 > EAPI-2 conversion related bug[1] in an existing previously working ebuild, converted without a bump. It was and remained ~arch so users should have been prepared to cope, but a bump would have been nice and it would have been a SERIOUS mistake to try to do that as stable. So I agree with the earlier opinion that while it may not matter for EAPI-0 > EAPI-1, as a general policy and certainly for conversions to EAPI-2 and probably EAPI-3, a revision bump and ~arch keywording, thus forcing the package thru a new stabilizing process, should be strongly recommended at minimum -- enough that a tree change to dozens of stable ebuilds such as is being discussed simply wouldn't be possible, without assuming a bump and new stabilization process, thus, effectively requiring 60-days working minimum process time (30 no-bugs, 30 stable- keywording). [1] Bug #269691, kaffeine plain: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269691 secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269691 -- 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