Marius Mauch kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:39 +0200
> Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 05:38:34PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> On 02:03 Tue 14 Oct     , Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
>>>> There are some others sceneries but are not so common as the one
>>>> presented could be. Any decent solution for this case?
>>> There are only a few obvious ones, you'll have to pick which one
>>> you like best. Most of the other options basically duplicate these
>>> in some way or add more work to them for negligible gain:
>>> - Backport the ebuild from EAPI=2 to EAPI=0
>> EAPI-2 to EAPI-0 could imply lot of changes (not talking about what is
>> going to happen when we release new and more feature rich EAPIs), and
>> changes usually come with bugs. The ebuild is committed directly to
>> stable implies bugs in stable, which for me is a no-go.
> Assuming the ebuild changes between foo-1 and foo-2 are mainly due to
> the change from EAPI=0 to EAPI=2 (which I'd expect to be true in many
> cases) you could just reuse the foo-1 ebuild for foo-3.
> If there are major differences between foo-1 and foo-2 not related to
> the EAPI change then the maintainer probably didn't want foo-2 to
> become stable anytime soon, so it's at least questionable if foo-3
> should go straight to stable in the first place.
> And adding a new version directly to stable always comes with a risk,
> you can't eliminate that completely. It's all about risk assessment,
> and how much work you're willing to do or time you want to spend to
> minimize the risk.

There's no need to commit straight to stable. Just make two different
new revisions for each EAPI. Then the arch teams can test it like usual.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to