| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:22:05 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ruud Koolen <redlizard@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Monday 10 February 2014 17:00:11 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Let's add two more votes, following inspiration by Patrick: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > - "EAPI 1 is long deprecated and now banned. Repoman should refuse |
| 8 |
> > committing an EAPI 1 ebuild." |
| 9 |
> > - "EAPI 2 is long deprecated and now banned. Repoman should refuse |
| 10 |
> > committing an EAPI 2 ebuild." |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> For clarification, does this cover only new ebuilds, or bugfix |
| 13 |
> commits to existing EAPI [12] builds as well? I can see banning the |
| 14 |
> latter to be problematic. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Indeed, as pointed out in the other thread on -dev; there are multiple |
| 17 |
possibilities here: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1. an edit to an existing ebuild; |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
2. a revision bump; |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
3. a version bump. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Definitely would want to ban (3), I think banning (2) might be possible |
| 26 |
too if we expect developers to bump EAPI as they revision bump (and |
| 27 |
perhaps give the exception for critical security fixes to not have to |
| 28 |
bump the EAPI), banning (1) gets a bit more tricky. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
With kind regards, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 37 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 38 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives