| 1 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:07:37 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > I think it'd be better to lock the removal with a new EAPI for |
| 7 |
> > overlays / downstreams. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That sounds like complete overkill here. There's a deprecation warning |
| 10 |
> in place since five years, so people had plenty of time to update |
| 11 |
> their ebuilds. Also the corresponding has_m32() was removed long ago. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Or do you have any concrete evidence that has_m64 is still used? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Nope. It is just that it is part of an API that we export and, since |
| 16 |
we have easy means to drop it properly, why not doing so ? Esp. since |
| 17 |
dropping it "improperly" doesn't seem to bring any advantage. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The 5 years deprecation is irrelevant here: With C libraries, you |
| 21 |
deprecate a symbol/function for a few years then bump soname when |
| 22 |
dropping it. The equivalent here is removing it in a new EAPI after a |
| 23 |
deprecation period. |
Archives