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


Reply via email to