| 1 |
On 02/10/2014 09:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on what we |
| 3 |
> mean by "deprecating." I'm assuming here we mean something like repoman |
| 4 |
> won't allow commits at EAPI=1,2,3 but that ebuilds in the tree at those |
| 5 |
> EAPI's will continue working. Eg. dosed which was deprecated in the |
| 6 |
> EAPI 3 to 4 jump. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Right now EAPI 1 and 2 are deprecated, which means repoman prints some |
| 9 |
warnings that get ignored and nothing happens. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Going from the current state I would distinguish between deprecated |
| 12 |
(=unwanted, but tolerated) and banned (not tolerated) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I think we should look at the question of deprecating EAPI's on and ad |
| 16 |
> hoc basis with discussion on the list and a vote in the council. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think it's safe to deprecate the antepenultimate EAPI, and then do the |
| 19 |
banning on a more delayed and controlled basis. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Patrick |
Archives