| 1 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:07:23 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sunday 20 September 2009 13:28:40 Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when |
| 7 |
> > > can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old |
| 10 |
> > EAPIs? Do you mean: |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > 1. No longer ensuring that users who have pre-EAPI versions of portage |
| 13 |
> > have a clean upgrade path. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > or |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > 2. No longer supporting EAPI=0/1 in package managers. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sorry for not being more clear. I meant the former. Should we keep an EAPI |
| 20 |
0 version of system packages around indefinitely, and if not, what can we use |
| 21 |
as a rule of thumb to decide when it's okay to raise the required minimum. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm not talking about dropping EAPI 0/1/etc support altogether, either from |
| 24 |
the tree or from PMs. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I think he means neither. We should no longer tolerate pre-EAPI2 ebuilds being |
| 27 |
> added to the tree and should work on migrating all "old" ebuilds as the need |
| 28 |
> arises. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No, that's a different discussion, though one that should also be had. |
| 31 |
Personally I only bump the EAPI when I need to, but I wouldn't argue against |
| 32 |
a policy that new ebuilds (bumps or new packages) should use EAPI 'x'. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. |
| 37 |
gcc-porting, |
| 38 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives