On 12/27/2012 03:40 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
>>
>> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
>> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
>> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
>>
>
> OK here's one way how we could pull option a) through. After all we have some
> sort of basic versioning present in the profiles (the 10.0 part that makes no
> sense otherwise).
> [Note: this does not cover prefix profiles, BSD and other oddities. Need
> special treatment.]
>
> 1) Define a new set of profiles by copying the current ones, and replacing
> the
> 10.0 parent by a 13.0 parent. Only differences between 10.0 and 13.0:
> * the EAPI, now 5,
> * e.g. an additional parent profiles/base5 (for global stable mask files)
>
> 2) Deprecate the 10.0 profiles NOW by removing them from profiles.desc and
> putting the new 13.0 profiles there. This has absolutely no effect on running
> installations.
It's not strictly necessary to remove them from profiles.desc, since
repoman ignores them if they have a 'deprecated' file, and emerge warns
any users who have a deprecated profile selected.
> 3) Make a news item about removal of 10.0 profiles in a year / ${TIMESCALE}.
>
> 4) One ${TIMESCALE} later, remove 10.0 profiles. This is the ugly part, and
> users need to be warned and prepared properly - here everyone needs an EAPI5
> capable portage.
>
> 5) Since now all existing profiles require EAPI 5, move that requirement to
> the profile root directory.
>
> Comments?
>
Sounds good to me.
--
Thanks,
Zac
