| 1 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:39:48 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >> Or do you have any concrete evidence that has_m64 is still used? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > Nope. It is just that it is part of an API that we export and, since |
| 9 |
> > we have easy means to drop it properly, why not doing so ? Esp. |
| 10 |
> > since dropping it "improperly" doesn't seem to bring any |
| 11 |
> > advantage. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> But we don't have such means. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
has "${EAPI:-0}" 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 || die "${FUNCNAME}: don't use this |
| 16 |
anymore" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
isn't there a plan to have eqawarn into eapi7 ? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
you would even be able to achieve removal of eutils inherit |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[...] |
| 25 |
> > The 5 years deprecation is irrelevant here: With C libraries, you |
| 26 |
> > deprecate a symbol/function for a few years then bump soname when |
| 27 |
> > dropping it. The equivalent here is removing it in a new EAPI after |
| 28 |
> > a deprecation period. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That's not equivalent. For C libraries there are releases and the code |
| 31 |
> gets actually removed. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Eclasses can drop old EAPI support too. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[...] |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Alexis. |
Archives