1 |
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:55:41 +0200 |
2 |
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 03/03/2010 02:40 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
5 |
|
6 |
> > Is this actually documented anywhere? Or is this another of our |
7 |
> > "this-is-policy-because-everyone-knows-it's-policy" policies? I know there |
8 |
> > was a technical issue with removing pkg_*_rm functions way-back-when, but if |
9 |
> > there's no technical reason why functions can't be deprecated, and we're just |
10 |
> > clinging to policy in the name of policy, then I can't say I see the point. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Big eclass changes should go through gentoo-dev so someone here will |
14 |
> point it out at least. Devmanual should document it so I challenge |
15 |
> anyone to submit a patch: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html |
18 |
> git+ssh://git.gentoo.org/var/gitroot/devmanual.git |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Also policies should be changed when they don't make sense any more as I |
21 |
> said in my first response but I am not sure if that's the case here. |
22 |
|
23 |
The problem is I don't think this is actually a policy. One of the first |
24 |
projects I did as a developer, while still under probation, was a complete |
25 |
rewrite, in-place, of an eclass. Many functions were removed or renamed |
26 |
(done in an overlay of course, with a migration path). It was fully reviewed, |
27 |
on list, by senior devs at the time. I was told by several people that if |
28 |
there were any exported pkg_post_rm or pkg_pre_rm functions, they couldn't be |
29 |
touched because of portage limitations (those limitations were removed ~3 |
30 |
years ago now IIRC). So I wonder if this isn't just a years-long game of |
31 |
Telephone where one rule passed down by word of mouth got over-generalized |
32 |
and sufficiently twisted as to apply to everything. |
33 |
|
34 |
Nor do I think it's a particularly useful policy that keeps deprecated |
35 |
interfaces around forever. Careful removal with a long warning period |
36 |
shouldn't actually pose a problem. I think Arfrever's plan is reasonable. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
41 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
42 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |