| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 10/02/14 08:46 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 02/10/2014 09:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 6 |
>> The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on |
| 7 |
>> what we mean by "deprecating." I'm assuming here we mean |
| 8 |
>> something like repoman won't allow commits at EAPI=1,2,3 but that |
| 9 |
>> ebuilds in the tree at those EAPI's will continue working. Eg. |
| 10 |
>> dosed which was deprecated in the EAPI 3 to 4 jump. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Right now EAPI 1 and 2 are deprecated, which means repoman prints |
| 13 |
> some warnings that get ignored and nothing happens. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Back when these were deprecated, the general consensus was that we |
| 16 |
shouldn't change (especially stable) ebuilds in the tree and just |
| 17 |
upgrade when we revbump or version bump. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Is this still true? If so, I'm wondering how many of those older-EAPI |
| 20 |
ebuilds are just plain old... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlL44T8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCl1gEAqQYhWVUPjZu05NNAhkhuy36o |
| 27 |
jlWfu0lJc6irf5Q2vhkA/0NGS29ceLdGjqLbTa8fYPNlQ/4sntpC04tIMuPI4Obm |
| 28 |
=xnk2 |
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives