1 |
Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> said: |
2 |
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:41:58 +0100 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Matti Bickel <mabi@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > A general question, that just popped into my head when i was reading |
6 |
> > this: if i touch a ebuild which has EAPI=0, should i bump it to |
7 |
> > EAPI=2? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Only if you take the time to read through it and test that your revised |
10 |
> ebuild will have the same functionality as the old one. That's why I |
11 |
> wrote "when a new ebuild...". This should not be an automated thing, |
12 |
> but rather a part of the basic bump-adjust-test maintenance cycle. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
while i agree with what you say here, it is also important to take the |
16 |
general EAPI roadmap into account. as we currently dont have one AFAIK, |
17 |
we should make efforts to agree on one soon. |
18 |
|
19 |
i doesnt make sense to introduce EAPI=2 into ebuilds, if we dont expect to |
20 |
have en EAPI=2 capable package manager stable within a reasonable |
21 |
timeframe. |
22 |
|
23 |
as it really doesnt matter what i think, when portage-2.2 should go stable |
24 |
i will not bore you with that, however, given that only portage 2.2 |
25 |
supports EAPI=2 it is relevant for the discussion of an EAPI roadmap. |
26 |
|
27 |
in light of the current EAPI usage statistics, i would propose to |
28 |
deprecate EAPI 1 (and 2) much earlier than EAPI 0. |
29 |
|
30 |
regards |
31 |
Thilo |
32 |
|
33 |
> /loki_val |