Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-10 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 12:13:40 pm Petteri Räty wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-10 Thread Daniel Drake
Robert R. Russell wrote: My answer is a simple example from my own system. My current system uses a motherboard that is around 6 months old and is only correctly supported by the latest ~arch gentoo-sources. The add on video card, a 1 to 2 year old nvidia card, works great with

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-10 Thread Daniel Drake
why offlist? Robert R. Russell wrote: Stabilization reports for ~xorg-x11 and the ~xf86-video-intel drivers aren't likely to go any where given the number of issues people are asking about on the forums But the important thing is that you notify the maintainers that you're in trouble. That

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-09 Thread Graham Murray
Robert R. Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-09 Thread Jan Kundrát
Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: tree and my policies (more precisely: I can't keep current stable portage and cmake-2.6.2). My solution to the problem, was to copy the ebuild in /var/db/pkg to my local overlay and I'm fine with it for now. The drawback of this workaround is, I could miss important

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-09 Thread Petteri Räty
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Olivier Crête
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 01:00 +0100, Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: So this is about, if the current policy for using EAPI 2 in the tree is really good or it should be improved, when introducing future EAPI's, where portage supporting that EAPI is still unstable. My proposal would be, to only use

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:09:50 -0500 Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to go further and ask that for the next EAPI change, we only allow ebuilds using it into the tree once a version of portage that supports it has gone stable. And then, not make any ebuild with the new EAPI

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Olivier Crête
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:09:50 -0500 Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to go further and ask that for the next EAPI change, we only allow ebuilds using it into the tree once a version of portage that supports it has gone

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Olivier Crête
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:25:44 -0500 Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The testing should be two phased, the first for regression (against existing ebuilds), and once thats stable, then we can test with new ebuilds... Uh,

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:25:44 -0500 Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The can be tested properly phase is when it's in ~arch... That also means that to pull a significant number of ebuilds it forces mostly everyone to

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Monday 08 December 2008 06:00:10 pm Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: snip This mail is about EAPI usage in the portage tree. Let me describe it, with what happened today: I'm running a mostly stable system (91 of 1255 installed packages are unstable), but I test here and there some packages. On of