| 1 |
On 16:46 Fri 31 Dec , "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/31/10 12:13 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
> > EAPI 0 might stick around for quite a while but for example deprecating |
| 4 |
> > EAPI 1 shouldn't be as hard. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That seems also to be a safe first step. EAPI-1 ebuilds were at least |
| 7 |
> written with EAPIs in mind. That's obviously not true for EAPI-0. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> We could even deprecate EAPI-2 in favor of EAPI-3, hmmm.... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I think a repoman non-fatal warning would be fine. If we have a warning |
| 12 |
> about forcing -j1, we can surely have one about ancient EAPIs. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm in favor of documenting things such that the latest EAPI is the |
| 15 |
standard and others are backwards diffs based on it, shifted to |
| 16 |
appendices or somewhere out of the way. This will encourage people to |
| 17 |
easily use the latest developments rather than trying to build up a |
| 18 |
mental stack of added and removed features across multiple levels. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Donnie |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 25 |
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 26 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives