| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> personally, i dont see a problem here. what actual burden is there for |
| 4 |
> continuing supporting EAPI 0/1 ? i dont think we should go around deprecating |
| 5 |
> things for the pure fun of it. |
| 6 |
> -mike |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I tend to agree, unless of course the maintainers of the various |
| 10 |
package managers chime in and say that some aspect of some particular |
| 11 |
EAPI requires them to maintain a lot of legacy code. Then I'd be all |
| 12 |
for dropping some. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
However, with upwards of 70%+ of the tree being pre-EAPI-3, do we |
| 15 |
really want to go around tweaking all those ebuilds just so that they |
| 16 |
work exactly like they already work (if we don't mess anything up)? |
| 17 |
I'm sure lots of packages are maintainer-needed, so are we going to do |
| 18 |
a massive removal of otherwise-working packages just because of their |
| 19 |
EAPI (I"m fine with cleaning broken packages, but why touch working |
| 20 |
ones)? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sure, the new EAPIs are nice, and I'm sure that devs creating new |
| 23 |
ebuilds will follow whatever is in the devmanual (which obviously |
| 24 |
would only reference the new way of doing things) so over time things |
| 25 |
will take care of themselves. Why force a change? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Again, if this is causing the package manager / repoman / etc |
| 28 |
maintainers problems, then I'm fine with simplifying the landscape... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives