| 1 |
On 03/11/2012 03:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer<patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we |
| 4 |
>> effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places) |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6 |
| 7 |
>> months maybe?), but there's no need to rush things. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who |
| 10 |
> runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I |
| 11 |
> think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for |
| 12 |
> quite a while longer. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I can imagine that this will lead to quite a bit of churn with |
| 15 |
> updating ebuilds and especially eclasses. If a package doesn't |
| 16 |
> require a feature in a newer EAPI, what is the point? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
+1, it doesn't make any sense unless the request is coming from |
| 19 |
dev-portage@ developers (Zac namely :-) as a part of code cleanup |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I still find EAPI=1 useful myself when, for example, new GNOME 3 |
| 22 |
packages gets introduced to tree and there is a need to touch EAPI=0 |
| 23 |
ebuilds just to add SLOT deps. |
Archives