| 1 |
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:37:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Samstag, 6. April 2013, 23:43:14 schrieb Ryan Hill: |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:54:50 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > I'd be a little more proactive and deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1 immediately |
| 9 |
> > > (which would correspond to the 4 years mentioned above). When doing a |
| 10 |
> > > version or revision bump, the ebuild should be updated to use a newer |
| 11 |
> > > EAPI. There can be exceptions, e.g. for security bumps. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Toolchain packages are EAPI 0 and we aren't changing. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That sounds a bit like "over my ..." |
| 16 |
> Care to elaborate why? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Every time this comes up we explain why. Please refer to those threads for the |
| 19 |
complete story. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In short: |
| 22 |
Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are not |
| 23 |
forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there are too many |
| 24 |
EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks something (the trick is |
| 25 |
to break things people don't care about any more and hope no one notices). I |
| 26 |
don't know the ins and outs of glibc's eblits but I doubt they would be simple |
| 27 |
to port either. I also don't know much about toolchain-binutils.eclass, but |
| 28 |
it seems like it would be doable. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Other packages are already on later EAPIs. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
There is no reason to remove EAPI 0. Leave it as the baseline that other |
| 33 |
EAPI's are defined by. Most devs will not be dealing with these packages, so |
| 34 |
it really doesn't affect them. Since there is no reason to remove it, we will |
| 35 |
continue to use it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gcc-porting |
| 40 |
toolchain, wxwidgets by design, by neglect |
| 41 |
@ gentoo.org for a fact or just for effect |
Archives