| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we |
| 3 |
> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6 |
| 6 |
> months maybe?), but there's no need to rush things. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who |
| 9 |
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I |
| 10 |
think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for |
| 11 |
quite a while longer. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I can imagine that this will lead to quite a bit of churn with |
| 14 |
updating ebuilds and especially eclasses. If a package doesn't |
| 15 |
require a feature in a newer EAPI, what is the point? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Why not deprecate the x86 arch while we're at it... :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Rich |
Archives