| 1 |
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 |
| 2 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or |
| 5 |
> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been |
| 6 |
> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to get_libdir |
| 9 |
> and people updating EAPI in ebuild without properly testing the |
| 10 |
> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is not |
| 11 |
> updated to handle it solves it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
+1. Because: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. it makes it possible to change API safely with EAPI bump, including |
| 18 |
major refactorings, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
2. it makes it possible for the eclass maintainer to confirm that |
| 21 |
the eclass is correctly ported to new EAPI, rather than some random |
| 22 |
developer with poor knowledge of eclass assuming it works fine, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
3. it makes it possible to ban the eclass in a new EAPI to more |
| 25 |
effectively phase it out. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This only reminds me of the cases when eclasses weren't calling |
| 28 |
eapply_user in EAPI 6 and caused ebuilds to fail. Because someone |
| 29 |
assumed that if his ebuild works in EAPI 6, then the eclass is |
| 30 |
certainly correct. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Michał Górny |
| 35 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives