-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 18/11/15 02:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> It doesn't seem that unlikely to me... > >> 1. Otherwise stable system with package "foo" keyworded as >> ~arch. > >> 2. foo needs some dependency of a dependency named "bar". > >> 3. The bar maintainer revbumps and removes the old EAPI=5 >> ebuild. > >> I don't really care either way, I'm just wondering whether this >> is "safe" because it's actually safe, or "safe" because we're >> gonna do it anyway. > > Actually it is quite simple: > > - The stable tree should not contain any EAPI 6 ebuilds at this > point, so stable users should not see any change. - Unstable > users will have a package manager aware of EAPI 6, so all ebuilds > will be visible for it. - If you mix stable and unstable then you > are by definition an advanced user, who will be able to cope with > the situation. :) >
And, as a developer maintaining bar in #3 above, you should make sure that either the stable version satisfies all rdeps (even those in ~arch), or you don't remove the EAPI5 ~arch version until all the rdeps are EAPI6. Theoretically repoman could check for this; i don't know if it's implemented though or if there are any plans to implement it.. IIRC, confirming removals don't break rdeps is not something repoman can do unless you run a 'repoman full' on the whole tree (or at least all the rdeps) yourself. This really isn't any different from the case where foo-1.0 has RDEPEND=" =bar-3.0 " and then bar-3.0 is dropped. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlZMyF8ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe21RAD7Bxku5bXPbQGLcCwgefjJqadB LA1tSiK0OkCeUKwvtXEBALw4owHTN/cIOZTFgJkx+scKVvH8lefZbQVjTl9w8KlS =qb2w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
