| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 14:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:36:13PM +0100, David Seifert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Hey all, |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several |
| 7 |
> > > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the |
| 10 |
> > > changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a |
| 11 |
> > > widely used eclass it breaks overlays with little to no notice; |
| 12 |
> > > especially since we do not require developers to be subscribed to this |
| 13 |
> > > mailing list. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > I do agree that overlay authors are on their own to fix things, but we |
| 16 |
> > > need to |
| 17 |
> > > find a way to notify them when a breaking change is going into a widely |
| 18 |
> > > used eclass and give them time to adjust their ebuilds. |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > If the old way of doing things cannot be supported |
| 21 |
> > > along side the new way the correct path forward is a new version of the |
| 22 |
> > > eclass then a lastrites on the old version. That would give overlay |
| 23 |
> > > authors time to switch to the new eclass. |
| 24 |
> > > |
| 25 |
> > > If the old and new way can be supported in the same code base, a |
| 26 |
> > > reasonable way forward is to allow both ways to exist while ::gentoo is |
| 27 |
> > > migrated to the new code path then do the equivalent of a lastrites for |
| 28 |
> > > the old code path so overlay authors can adjust their ebuilds. |
| 29 |
> > > |
| 30 |
> > > Thoughts? |
| 31 |
> > > |
| 32 |
> > > William |
| 33 |
> > > |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > All of this was announced with a 3 month timeout, using the right channels. |
| 36 |
> > Have |
| 37 |
> > you checked all python-related eclasses changes submitted to the ML? In this |
| 38 |
> > case, eqawarn would not have been possible, because the change involved |
| 39 |
> > dereferencing a variable. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> This is the change that broke us today. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aa45f4f86f9b865eb0fe7344d83a7258 |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Where is the three month timeout for it? |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Thanks, |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> William |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Oh I thought you meant the python-single-r1 change from a month ago. |
Archives