1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:26:11 +0100 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > The second step (ensuring that people no longer have kdebuild-1 |
4 |
> > packages installed) can be done with the next major Paludis release. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> So you also don't need it for the next major Paludis release. And |
7 |
> probably you also have better uses for your time than to do bug fixes |
8 |
> for kdebuild-1 in minor releases? |
9 |
|
10 |
I need it there for as long as there is support for it in Paludis, |
11 |
which is two major releases away if we do this the responsible way (the |
12 |
first to issue warnings, the second to remove). |
13 |
|
14 |
And it's not about doing bug fixes. It's about making changes that |
15 |
affect multiple EAPIs, and ensuring that each of those EAPIs still |
16 |
works. For example, when I rewrite the package dep spec handling code |
17 |
to allow more flexibility, I need to make sure that it still correctly |
18 |
handles every supported EAPI. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > The third step (removing it from everywhere) can be left until after |
21 |
> > we've given everyone reasonable time to clean up. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Users? Who haven't updated since several months? They don't care about |
24 |
> PMS at all. |
25 |
|
26 |
Users care that their KDE remains working. We haven't taken a few |
27 |
simple steps to make sure that everyone who used to use genkdesvn |
28 |
has switched to using other ebuilds. |
29 |
|
30 |
Seriously though, this stinks of politics. What's wrong with leaving |
31 |
something that's already there in place for a while longer? Why is |
32 |
there a desperate urge to remove it immediately? |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |