On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "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.
Thanks Duncan. I basically understand the portage stuff, in the sense that it's a new feature. I read a few eamils form the portage developers, etc., and got a sense of some of what it is supposed to do. that part I'm OK with, as I am, I guess, with the idea that someone who wrote the Ardour ebuild is requiring these new features. My real question is what is required to build that portage on an ~amd64 machine so that I can build Ardour? Is anyone on this list using portage-2.2.x? If so how did they get it to build? Thanks, Mark
