| 1 |
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> As the KDE team prepares to add revised eclasses for the KDE3 ebuilds so |
| 5 |
> we can get 3.5.10 marked stable and then finally ask for KDE4 |
| 6 |
> stabilization, we'd like to drop some old eclasses from the tree. We |
| 7 |
> plan to drop the kde-base, kde-dist, kde-i18n and kde-source eclasses as |
| 8 |
> they're no longer used. |
| 9 |
> So unless someone has any objections, we'll drop the eclasses from the |
| 10 |
> tree in the next few days. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In case anyone has any doubts about portage reliance on the eclasses, |
| 13 |
> let me quote Zac: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> #gentoo-dev 20:19 <@zmedico> jmbsvicetto: it's only an issue for people |
| 16 |
> upgrading from less than portage-2.1.4, which is pretty rare nowadays |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> For the KDE team, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It's an issue for people who have packages in vdb emerged with portage |
| 23 |
older than 2.1.4 (if this was the version where the env started being |
| 24 |
added to vdb). I have been maintaining the position that nuking eclasses |
| 25 |
doesn't really provide enough benefits to bork these installs. I |
| 26 |
recommend just making the eclasses unusable for emerging stuff and |
| 27 |
keeping uninstalls working. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Petteri |
Archives