| 1 |
On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 |
| 4 |
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Hi Devs, |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or |
| 9 |
>>> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been |
| 10 |
>>> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to get_libdir |
| 13 |
>>> and people updating EAPI in ebuild without properly testing the |
| 14 |
>>> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is |
| 15 |
>>> not updated to handle it solves it. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Never liked to wait for a whole eclass update for a new eapi when I |
| 21 |
>> only use a couple functions from it that I have tested when updating an |
| 22 |
>> ebuild. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I think the idea is a sound one though. And there is no reason it |
| 26 |
> couldn't be tweaked to give the option to set it at the function level |
| 27 |
> and not the eclass level. This is also an argument for simplifying |
| 28 |
> eclasses when it makes sense (I realize this will never be 100%). |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If specific functions can be useful there is also a case to be made for |
| 32 |
refactoring of the code |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 36 |
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 37 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives