| 1 |
On 11.7.2021 23.54, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, everyone. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The point of contention was a proposed change to the EAPI depreciation |
| 7 |
> workflow. The current workflow consists of roughly three steps: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 1. The Council decides to deprecate an EAPI. It is added to eapis- |
| 10 |
> deprecated in layout.conf and pkgcheck/repoman start emitting warnings |
| 11 |
> when they're used in ebuilds. This is a 'weak' request for developers |
| 12 |
> to stop using the old EAPI. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 2. The Council decides to ban an EAPI. This is a pure policy decision |
| 15 |
> with no technical implementation. It is a 'strong' request not to use |
| 16 |
> the old EAPI, and developers have to have a very good reason (e.g. |
| 17 |
> blocked secbump, revbump due to dep changes by a third party and so on) |
| 18 |
> to touch an ebuild and leave it at old EAPI. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> 3. When all ebuilds are removed, the EAPI is added to eapis-banned |
| 21 |
> and the tools now explicitly forbid adding ebuilds with that EAPI. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> The change proposed in [1] eliminates step 2. The EAPI remains |
| 25 |
> in 'deprecated' policy-state until all ebuilds using it are removed. |
| 26 |
> There is no distinction between 'weak' deprecation ("please don't use |
| 27 |
> it") and 'strong' ban ("you mustn't use it unless you have a very good |
| 28 |
> reason to"). |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So it's about removing a bureaucratic step that never resulted in |
| 32 |
anything before? Sounds good. The 2nd step should be considered being |
| 33 |
added back IF people kept deliberately adding deprecated EAPI ebuilds. |
| 34 |
But as you said, guess it's not a problem with active maintainers and |
| 35 |
current available QA tools. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- juippis |
Archives