| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Eclasses still shouldn't break backwards compatibility — that hasn't |
| 3 |
> changed in the past 5 years, despite what a very small minority of |
| 4 |
> devs appears to think. This has been a huge PITA for python.eclass in |
| 5 |
> particular, which has broken tons of my ebuilds for no particular |
| 6 |
> reason. (And no, a 30-day warning is not an excuse for breaking |
| 7 |
> anything.) If you need to edit an eclass for EAPI/API changes anyway, |
| 8 |
> updating the inherit line to "python-2" instead of "python" isn't a |
| 9 |
> big deal. In the general sense, I think changing the API in arbitrary |
| 10 |
> ways based on the EAPI in use is just plain confusing, and it should |
| 11 |
> go into a new version-bumped eclass instead. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think making the eclass behave differently on new EAPIs is not a bad |
| 14 |
way to deprecate old functions. It will not break any existing ebuilds. |
| 15 |
Only if you touch the ebuild and change the EAPI things may break, but |
| 16 |
then the ebuild has your attention anyway. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
And there is no real disadvantage over a python.eclass that dies on EAPI |
| 19 |
4 and a python-2.eclass that dies on EAPI <=3 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Best regards, |
| 23 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives