Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

[Alan McKinnon]

On 10/02/2014 22:56, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com
> <mailto:alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/02/2014 18:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>     >> Removing support for it from a package manager should of course
>     >> > happen much later (well after it is banned).
>     > The package manager must be able to uninstall old packages, which
>     > essentially means that support for old EAPIs cannot be removed.
>
>
>     I feel this aspect needs to be limited, no user can reasonably expect
>     Gentoo devs to retain support in the package manager for obsolete
>     features indefinitely. We also shouldn't be too hasty in removing the
>     support, but there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, a point of no
>     return. It's probably measured in years, my thumb suck guess is 3 years
>     after a given EAPI is finally obsoleted.
>
>
> Why is that unreasonable?

It's unreasonable for me to expect you to support long-dead features and
EAPIs. Unless you choose to support them of course, or if it's no big
deal to support them (I have a hunch this last is not true, that it is a
big deal actually).

The bottom line is that I don't pay you to write the pm I use, so I have
no expectation that stuff will always work forever. A host where portage
has not been updated for 2 years is basically a moribund host



>
> -A
>
>
>
>
>     As a real example - I know someone who proudly shows off a Gentoo host
>     with a 2004 profile. Can he reasonably expect portage to still work
>     flawlessly 10 years later? I feel no, luckily he agrees with me.
>
>     --
>     Alan McKinnon
>     alan.mckinnon@×××××.com <mailto:alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
>
>
>


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com