1 |
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote: |
2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: |
3 |
> >> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who |
4 |
> >> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I |
5 |
> >> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for |
6 |
> >> quite a while longer. |
7 |
> > We have to support them indefinitely. It's not possible to uninstall a |
8 |
> > package whose EAPI is unknown. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Would it be feasible to do a pkg_pretend() check and refuse |
12 |
> install/upgrade if packages with unsupported EAPI are detected? |
13 |
|
14 |
The question should be "is it worth doing it", rather than "can we |
15 |
hack out something". |
16 |
|
17 |
As Ciaran said, PM's are going to be supporting EAPI1 indefinitely- |
18 |
it's zero cost to do so at this point. Thus doing what you're |
19 |
proposing doesn't gain us anything but complexity. |
20 |
|
21 |
If people want to enforce the eapi1 is no longer used in the gentoo |
22 |
repo, that's fine- we stick a list of acceptable EAPI's into |
23 |
its layout.conf. |
24 |
|
25 |
If you want to block EAPI1 from being further used, go that route; at |
26 |
least for pkgcore (and presumably paludis, likely portage), ripping |
27 |
out EAPI1 is unlikely to occur anything this side of 2015. |
28 |
|
29 |
~brian |