1 |
On 03/11/12 21:52, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we |
4 |
>> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places) |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6 |
7 |
>> months maybe?), but there's no need to rush things. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Is there really much of a benefit to this? |
10 |
|
11 |
Let me phrase it like this: |
12 |
Can you list all differences between EAPI 1,2,3 and 4? |
13 |
|
14 |
It's a lot easier for everyone involved when you don't need to care |
15 |
about all the special cases (like src_prepare not running) because |
16 |
you've standardized on one EAPI for support |
17 |
|
18 |
(Legacy code can be slowly phased out or upgraded, but I don't want to |
19 |
remember if I can use slot-deps or use-deps and all those "irrelevant" |
20 |
details) |
21 |
|
22 |
> I guess for anybody who |
23 |
> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I |
24 |
> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for |
25 |
> quite a while longer. |
26 |
|
27 |
That's orthogonal to the discussion - I think the goal is to reduce the |
28 |
amount of errors introduced by confusing features and making the |
29 |
documentation more streamlined ("Here's the EAPI you use" instead of "if |
30 |
you want to learn about eapi2 go to page 62. If you don't go to page 84") |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I can imagine that this will lead to quite a bit of churn with |
33 |
> updating ebuilds and especially eclasses. If a package doesn't |
34 |
> require a feature in a newer EAPI, what is the point? |
35 |
Eclasses are up-to-date as far as I remember, and it's just *new* things |
36 |
that get motivated to eapi3/4 - force-updating is silly |