Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: don't define ebeep and epause in eutils in EAPI 3
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:25:24
Message-Id: 4B54ED9F.6040101@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: don't define ebeep and epause in eutils in EAPI 3 by Ulrich Mueller
1 On 01/18/2010 10:07 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 >>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Petteri Räty wrote:
3 >
4 >> With GLEP 42 and proper logging of e* messages I think we shouldn't
5 >> annoy users any more with ebeep or epause
6 >
7 > Agreed.
8 >
9 >> so attached is a patch only defines these functions for EAPIs 0, 1
10 >> and 2. Anyone have a reason to keep these around for EAPI 3?
11 >
12 > We wouldn't gain much by this, because we still have to go through all
13 > ebuilds using ebeep and epause and change them to EAPI 3.
14 >
15
16 This would force people to upgrade when migrating to EAPI 3.
17
18 > This would be at least the same amount of work as removing the ebeep
19 > and epause calls from all ebuilds. Why don't we do this instead and
20 > leave the eclass as it is?
21 >
22
23 This would make sure no-one uses these even in overlays.
24
25 > There are already enough differences between EAPIs for devs to learn,
26 > and IMHO we shouldn't introduce additional complications such as EAPI
27 > dependent eclass behaviour (except where necessary, e.g. src_prepare).
28 >
29
30 Yes but as people shouldn't have the need for these there's not that
31 much to learn here.
32
33 Regards,
34 Petteri

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature