"Mark Knecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on  Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:35:42 -0800:

> The root cause of this is I wanted to emerge the newest version of
> Ardour from the pro-audio overlay and ran into a new message about it
> being masked by something called EAPI 2 which according to the message
> requires a 'newer' version of portage. (No revision given.) That's all
> this was about, and there's absoutely no rush to fix it as I'm not
> likely to really use Ardour. Just wanted to take a look at what sort of
> headway they are making with their feature set so it's really nothing
> but pure curiosity.

OK.  FWIW, for EAPI-2, you need the new ~arch portage-2.2-rcX series.  
EAPI-2 is allowed in various overlays and now in ~arch, but not in stable 
until a stable portage supports it.  It'll bring a number of new features 
including full set support, per-package use-defaults (previously a USE 
flag could be defaulted to on per profile, but not per package, off being 
the unset default, of course), and IIRC use dependencies (if a package 
requires say C++ support and gcc has been built without it, it must now 
die with an error message telling the user to make the change, with use-
deps, it could force gcc to be recompiled with C++ instead of dying, thus 
avoiding somebody leaving a 200-package emerge going overnight, only to 
come back the next day to find out it stopped with package #2 due to a 
USE dependency death).

So there are some nice things coming in EAPI-2 and a number of packages 
can really use them.  But an EAPI-2 supporting portage, while now in the 
tree, remains unstable, as there are still a few bugs to work out before 
it goes fully stable.  So if you prefer a stable portage, you'll have to 
wait for EAPI-2, and any packages requiring it (which by definition can't 
be stabilized until an EAPI-2 portage is stable too).

-- 
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