| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Hi Devs, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or |
| 8 |
>> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been |
| 9 |
>> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to get_libdir |
| 12 |
>> and people updating EAPI in ebuild without properly testing the |
| 13 |
>> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is |
| 14 |
>> not updated to handle it solves it. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Never liked to wait for a whole eclass update for a new eapi when I |
| 20 |
> only use a couple functions from it that I have tested when updating an |
| 21 |
> ebuild. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think the idea is a sound one though. And there is no reason it |
| 25 |
couldn't be tweaked to give the option to set it at the function level |
| 26 |
and not the eclass level. This is also an argument for simplifying |
| 27 |
eclasses when it makes sense (I realize this will never be 100%). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives