| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:05:57 +0200 Johannes Huber wrote: |
| 4 |
> if we want to attract more contributors we should consider to have one |
| 5 |
> supported EAPI (latest). EAPI 4 is the last not marked as deprecated |
| 6 |
> (< EAPI 5). The move in ebuilds from EAPI 4 to EAPI 5 is very simple |
| 7 |
> replacing the declaration. As we have now git in place we could easily |
| 8 |
> do this with one commit (awesome!!!!). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So please discuss this to get it ready for decision on next council |
| 11 |
> meeting. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Are all eclasses ready for this transition? I remember time when |
| 14 |
there were issues with python still demanding EAPI 4, while EAPI 5 |
| 15 |
in tree. This is no longer issue these days, but we hay have |
| 16 |
similar issues with other eclasses. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
What about compatibility with overlays? What if EAPI 4 ban will |
| 19 |
hurt them (e.g. if relevant code will be dropped from eclasses). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
While I have no objections about EAPI 4 deprecation (except |
| 22 |
concerns mentioned above), I see no strong need for this also. |
| 23 |
Just declare EAPI 5 as recommended. Having legacy support for |
| 24 |
EAPI 4 will not hurt possible contributions. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives