| 1 |
James Cloos wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> "Petteri" == Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Petteri> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to |
| 5 |
> Petteri> EAPI 2. If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we |
| 6 |
> Petteri> want to keep live ebuilds for them around? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> What possible benefit could be had from dropping ebuilds for no other |
| 9 |
> reason than their EAPI? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The goal is to eventually get rid of built_with_use. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Your initial post indicated that you only wanted to drop ebuilds which |
| 16 |
> were unlikely to be in use by users. Given the fact that most (all?) |
| 17 |
> live ebuilds are masked, any automated tests for the likelyhood that |
| 18 |
> an ebuild is in active use will, by definition, have false negatives |
| 19 |
> when dealing with live ebuilds. (Where false negative means unlikely |
| 20 |
> to be in use even though it, in fact, is in use.) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you read the code I attached you will see that the reason live |
| 24 |
ebuilds show up in there is because adjutrix -U puts them to the list |
| 25 |
because they don't have any keywords. It follows my original reasoning |
| 26 |
that for live ebuilds the solution is to migrate them to EAPI 2. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Petteri |
Archives