Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

[Raymond Jennings]

So what do you guys think of leaving behind empty stubs for compatibility
and then simply filing a tracking bug blocked by any packages that removing
herds broke?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
> wrote:
> > The guys making the API change bear the burden of fixing anything it
> breaks,
> > however, if something gets officially deprecated, don't go out of your
> way
> > to support continued use.
>
> We tend to do this already for things like PMS, which is as close as
> Gentoo gets to something like the kernel API.
>
> However, sometimes a gradual transition doesn't always make as much
> sense, and Gentoo doesn't always have the manpower to make every
> change a pretty one.
>
> And there is a cost to maintaining that kind of backwards
> compatibility.  For example, debian chose to keep its LSB init scripts
> and write systemd unit wrappers around them.  If they had chosen
> openrc instead I wouldn't be surprised if they kept the LSB init
> scripts and wrote an openrc compatibility layer around that.  While
> this does provide a more stable experience, it also leaves around a
> ton of cruft.
>
> In general I tend to favor a balance.  Trying to get everything just
> right was why the git migration literally took years, and even that in
> the end had a few bumps.  Gentoo users need to be willing to deal with
> the occasionally bump in the road - we try to provide a fairly cutting
> edge experience, with minimal layers in integration.
>
> But, there is nothing really wrong with your suggestion, and we try to
> accommodate that approach when we can.
>
> > And yes, the personal attacks probably should die down.
>
> ++
>
> --
> Rich
>
>