El mar, 13-03-2012 a las 11:52 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
On 03/11/2012 05:49 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
If people want to enforce the eapi1 is no longer used in the gentoo
repo, that's fine- we stick a list of acceptable EAPI's into
its layout.conf.
That sounds pretty reasonable,
On Monday 12 of March 2012 01:49:35 Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be
On 03/11/2012 05:49 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
If people want to enforce the eapi1 is no longer used in the gentoo
repo, that's fine- we stick a list of acceptable EAPI's into
its layout.conf.
That sounds pretty reasonable, although I think a deprecation warning
would be more appropriate that
El dom, 11-03-2012 a las 13:01 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
After reading previous discussion:
http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/gentoo-dev-Deprecate-EAPIs--ftopict530567.html
Looks like preventing NEW commits from using eapi1 (via repoman) could
be done without major issues. This could even
On 03/11/12 20:01, Pacho Ramos wrote:
After reading previous discussion:
http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/gentoo-dev-Deprecate-EAPIs--ftopict530567.html
Looks like preventing NEW commits from using eapi1 (via repoman) could
be done without major issues. This could even being done also for
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6
months maybe?), but
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:52:40 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for
quite a while
On 03/11/2012 03:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauerpatr...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline
On 03/11/12 21:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
On 03/11/12 21:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
I wouldn't mind having a
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for
quite a while longer.
We have to support them indefinitely.
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:14:33 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package managers planned
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:14:33 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:45 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1
support. So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if
any EAPI=1 package is installed on the system. If yes, then it
aborts,
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:18:45 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1
support. So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if
any EAPI=1 package is installed on the
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:46:05 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
That I suspected, that's why I asked about feasibility.
grep 1 $(portageq vdb_path)/*/*/EAPI die might work for portage
and its current VDB layout.
vdb_path is one of those things that really really
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1 support.
So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if any EAPI=1
package is installed on the system. If yes, then it aborts,
Rich Freeman schrieb:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Assume a new version 13.37 of your package manager drops EAPI=1 support.
So package-manager-13.37.ebuild checks in pkg_pretend() if any EAPI=1
package is installed on the system. If
2012/3/11 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:52:40 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package
These must be maintained indefinitely to provide an upgrade path for
older Gentoo Linux installations. It is rare, but people do upgrade
old installs from time to time. Without some EAPI=1 packages, there is
no path for people to use to upgrade.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Pacho Ramos
top-posting me too to avoid more confusion, sorry
Se my other reply to this thread, upgrading in place an old gentoo
install is nearly impossible, it's so bad that glibc breakage can
occour, that require a knowledge of the system so high that everything
else become nuances of a vague problem.
Richard Yao schrieb:
These must be maintained indefinitely to provide an upgrade path for
older Gentoo Linux installations. It is rare, but people do upgrade
old installs from time to time. Without some EAPI=1 packages, there is
no path for people to use to upgrade.
The clean upgrade path
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Francesco Riosa viv...@gmail.com wrote:
To be able to upgrade a gentoo installation as old as five years is
interesting and valuable but require an effort that has yet to be
made.
I suspect it shouldn't be difficult IF you have access to a binary
package
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package managers planned on
24 matches
Mail list logo
