Robert R. Russell wrote:
> My personal opinion on this matter is pick one of the following:
> 1)  perform the bugfix without a version bump and remain at the current EAPI 
> version
> 2)  perform the bugfix with a version bump and remain at the current EAPI 
> version
> 3)  perform the bugfix with a version bump and upgrade to the latest EAPI
> Options 1 and 2 are how most updates are done, the user can mask the latest 
> version or upgrade. Option 3 allows the user to continue using the previous 
> version while they decide to update to a portage version that supports the 
> new EAPI.

The current policy states that ebuilds should only be bumped if the
installed files change. Changing EAPI from 1 to 2 has no effect outside
the vdb so the current policy means developers should use option 3.
There was a bug in stable Portage when EAPI 2 went in the tree that made
Portage stack trace but that's a problem with Portage not with the
policy in general.

> I would prefer that option 3 be made policy because I run several ~arch 
> packages that either don't have a stable version (kradio) or have a feature 
> that I need (gentoo-sources), and will not be pushed to stable immediately 
> for various reasons from lack of maintainer time to everybody says it 
> conflicts with major pieces of the system (Firefox 3, 64 bit netscape-flash, 
> and xorg).

Why should we prefer making it a little bit easier for stable users over
making ~arch users needlessly recompile stuff?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to