| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> I'd rather argue in terms of time instead of version numbers, |
| 6 |
>> because of the upgrade path for old systems. We guarantee one year |
| 7 |
>> for stable systems, but IMHO we should be more conservative for |
| 8 |
>> EAPI deprecation and go for two or three years there. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> By EAPI deprecation it is meant that we discourage using the old |
| 11 |
> EAPI in the tree. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Right, the above was about ebuilds in the tree, not about package |
| 14 |
managers. At least sys-apps/portage and its dependencies must stay at |
| 15 |
an EAPI that is stable long enough to allow an upgrade of old systems |
| 16 |
(where Portage might not recognise the newest EAPI). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Removing support for it from a package manager should of course |
| 19 |
> happen much later (well after it is banned). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The package manager must be able to uninstall old packages, which |
| 22 |
essentially means that support for old EAPIs cannot be removed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives