Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 83 [v3]: EAPI deprecation
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 05:07:46
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 83 [v3]: EAPI deprecation by Duncan <>
1 >>>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2022, Duncan wrote:
3 > The first possible clarification fits here (I think). Something like:
5 > This GLEP is intended as a policy reference guide for EAPI minimum effective
6 > times. Despite the statistical qualifications listed here no EAPI
7 > will be deprecated or banned without specific Gentoo Council action.
9 > (While this is implied by the "Gentoo Council will..." wording, making it
10 > explicit could prevent later confusion/controversy.)
12 > [...]
14 > The second possible clarification seems to fit about here, but may require
15 > a bit of adjustment to the text above it.
17 > The two 24-month times are effectively additive, yielding a total 48 months
18 > minimum between addition of an EAPI and banning of the previous one. Given
19 > past EAPI history of at minimum a year between EAPI introductions that should
20 > yield a minimum three years of active EAPI life before deprecation, one year
21 > minimum as the newest EAPI plus two years before deprecation, plus two years
22 > of deprecation, for five years total EAPI life before ban.
24 > (This isn't entirely necessary but makes explicit the answer to one of my first
25 > questions reading the proposal. YMMV. I debated spec vs rational, but decided
26 > rational was a better fit.)
28 I'd rather keep the text concise. For the first suggestion, the wording
29 already implies it. For the second one, people can do that maths
30 themselves.
32 Ulrich


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