On 2011.01.02 16:02, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 01/02/2011 05:19 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > > > > > > One way we could drop EAPI 0 would be if we do a major review of > tree > > and repo formats to improve upgrade paths, which would however > likely > > require breaking backwards compatibility at such point. > > I believe such a change would only be acceptable, if we would pack > > enough features and safety measures that it would ensure another > break > > would not need to be done for a long time. > > > > It's quite likely that if you are currently on a system with Portage > that does not understand EAPI 1 there's so many obstacles along the > upgrade path that a clean install makes more sense. Maybe someone is > willing to test this so that we actually know if there is an upgrade > path from EAPI 0 available any more. > > Regards, > Petteri > >
There is an upgrade path from a pure EAPI0 system but it starts with a visit to the tinderbox as portage and python block one another. Some other interesting things along the way:- You need to incrementally update gcc and glibc as there is some mutual blockage there too. libpng-1.2, xorg and libexpat too if the box is old enough. How far do you want to go back? Its a very educational experience but a reinstall is faster. The real killer is that some core system packages need EAPI>0 to build. Personally, I don't regard tinderbox as any part of any officially supported upgrade path. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
pgp5vUVecLO99.pgp
Description: PGP signature
