| 1 |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:33:36 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> Maintainers can still use --force if there is no other way. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > i'm definitely not convinced it is good practice to encourage people |
| 7 |
> > to do that ;) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> People are strongly encouraged to update their ebuilds to a newer |
| 10 |
> EAPI. ;) There are few EAPI 1 ebuilds left and the point is to prevent |
| 11 |
> adding new ones accidentally. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > also, it seems eapis-banned is not just about new ebuilds but also |
| 14 |
> > when there happens to be an ancient ebuild in the same directory |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Yes, and that repoman behaves this way is the very reason why EAPIs |
| 17 |
> 1 and 2 haven't been banned already one year ago. After all, this was |
| 18 |
> a council decision: |
| 19 |
> https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20140225.txt |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
i agree, but what worries me is that you suddenly introduced repoman |
| 23 |
errors for a bunch of packages for which there is no clear ETA on when |
| 24 |
these can be fixed (i think qa policy is to not bump eapi in place) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
this is not just about "fixing" a line in an ebuild, it is about proper |
| 27 |
testing for stabilization and e.g. ocaml is definitely not a package |
| 28 |
whose stabilization should be done lightly |
Archives