Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:00:58
Message-Id: 201003051600.49085.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2 by Ryan Hill
1 On Friday 05 March 2010 15:14:33 Ryan Hill wrote:
2 > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:12:36 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote:
3 > > Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is
4 > > so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a
5 > > deprecated section?
6 >
7 > Because then people use them. Don't ask me why. I have things I
8 > deprecated over two years ago still being used by a dozen ebuilds bumped
9 > within the last three months. You should be familiar with this behaviour
10 > wrt.
11 > built_with_use. So, when I'm making changes I still have to maintain the
12 > deprecated stuff.
13 >
14 > If I really want to get rid of it, then I have to break it. Replace the
15 > whole thing with a eerror like any of our deprecated eclasses. At that
16 > point, I would rather just remove the function or eclass than curate a
17 > museum of dead interfaces. But I suppose that's a personal quirk -- I
18 > hate having old unused code around.
19
20 indeed ... and to take it further, ive seen devs inclined to leave ebuilds
21 alone even after they were told point blank the funcs were deprecated and
22 going away.
23 -mike

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature