Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:59:26
Message-Id: 20100304211959.6b5f3f28@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2 by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:43:00 +0100
2 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > >>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010, Petteri Räty wrote:
5 >
6 > >> I think removal of functions is a special case of "Adding and
7 > >> Updating Eclasses" and we already have a policy for this.
8 >
9 > > Removing functions needs a migration plan. For example how long to
10 > > have a warning there, how long before it can be removed etc.
11 >
12 > There may be no general answer to these questions. If it's an eclass
13 > with limited scope and if the functions are no longer used in the
14 > tree, then I don't see the need for a long transition period. OTOH,
15 > for widespread eclasses like eutils you'd probably want it.
16 >
17 > > I don't see how you can get those from the common policy?
18 >
19 > "If you don't email gentoo-dev first, and end up breaking something,
20 > expect to be in a lot of trouble."
21
22 Now that's a policy I can get behind. :)
23
24
25 --
26 fonts, by design, by neglect
27 gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect
28 wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature