Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:23:51 -0500
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote:

> On 02/10/2014 07:43 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > EAPI 4 becomes deprecated when/if there's a new EAPI allowed in-tree
> > (EAPI 6, most likely)
>
> I am concerned about making this a "rule".

Maybe rather a rule with exceptions, or a rather strong recommendation;
as we've seen easier, sometimes a rule needs a revision.

> While I think its okay for the 4/5/6 move, I'm not sure if it will
> always be a good idea. 1) "Deprecating" an EAPI can mean breakage ---
> see my next point. 2) To tie the deprecation of the older EAPI to the
> introduction of a newer one can delay the introduction of the newer
> one and possibly needed features. You will connect the question of
> "are we ready to deprecate X" with the question "we need to introduce
> Y for needed features a, b and c."

It is hard to grasp for me for when features from a newer EAPI would
delay the migration, do you have an example?

> The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on what
> we mean by "deprecating."  I'm assuming here we mean something like
> repoman won't allow commits at EAPI=1,2,3 but that ebuilds in the
> tree at those EAPI's will continue working.  Eg. dosed which was
> deprecated in the EAPI 3 to 4 jump.

Good point, we should probably split this up in multiple phases:

 1) Repoman warns about deprecation of ebuilds with older EAPI.

 2) Repoman bails out on the addition of _new_ ebuilds with older EAPI.

 3) Repoman bails out on changes to _existing_ ebuilds with older EAPI.

As a side note, we'll need to implement VCS diff support in repoman to
check for this; as currently you can only check based the ebuilds.
Nevertheless a hack is possible, but I think we should avoid that...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D