| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> # This eclass contains backports of functions that were accepted |
| 4 |
> # by the Council for the EAPI following the EAPI used by ebuild, |
| 5 |
> # and can be implemented in pure shell script. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm not sure that I like this sort of a moving-target definition. |
| 8 |
When EAPI6 is out, do you intend to have the eclass die at some point |
| 9 |
for any packages using EAPI5? Or will they work indefinitely, and |
| 10 |
then the eclass will behave differently depending on what EAPI is used |
| 11 |
by the ebuild calling it? I can see issues either way (either we're |
| 12 |
building a monster eclass that basically replicates half of PMS, or we |
| 13 |
start running into migration issues and maybe even breakage of old |
| 14 |
systems that aren't updated/etc). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If this were about testing EAPI features prior to implementation in a |
| 17 |
limited and short-term scenario I could maybe see this being a |
| 18 |
net-positive, but even then we have issues with the eclass changing |
| 19 |
when users still have packages using it installed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I get what you're trying to do, but I'm a little worried that it might |
| 22 |
cause as many problems as it solves. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
--- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives