Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:10:02
Message-Id: pan.2010.03.03.15.08.22@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2 by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:47:41 +0000 as excerpted:
2
3 > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100
4 > Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote:
5 >> >> Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current
6 >> >> policy. If you want to do it, you should discuss about changing
7 >> >> policy.
8 >> >
9 >> > since when?
10 >> >
11 >> Since ever.
12 >> If you change eclass abi you need to rename it.
13 >
14 > No, that's not been the case 'since ever' at all. It used to be that if
15 > you changed or removed a function, you just had to make sure you didn't
16 > break anything. This was made more complicated by the way that eclasses
17 > in the tree were used for removing installed packages too, which is no
18 > longer an issue.
19
20 Indeed. And a long time waiting and a lot of work went into making it
21 possible to change eclasses without affecting uninstalls of currently
22 installed packages that used them.
23
24 Now that the wait is over and the work is done, are we going to forbid to
25 actually use it?
26
27 But I believe the policy claim was simply a misunderstanding of the
28 original practical requirement and the reasons behind it. With that
29 misunderstanding cleared up, what remains is ensuring that current in-tree
30 use gets fixed, and the changes are communicated so future users get it
31 right, as well. The proposed deprecation and migration plan does seem to
32 do that, altho minor quibbles on timing could be made. (It does seem most
33 changes like this get a year by tradition, and that would be to the "die"
34 phase, which would put it at March ??, 2011, with the final removal
35 perhaps another six months out. However, for this ~arch user, that always
36 seemed overly conservative, so /I'd/ not contest the shorter timing as
37 proposed. Someone might wish to, tho, and AFAIK the precedent would be
38 behind them.)
39
40 I would suggest setting /some/ sort of minimum time policy, however,
41 perhaps four months per phase (warning, die), thus giving folks who update
42 once per quarter a bit of leeway. In practice that'd push the die phase
43 out slightly as the deprecations are still being debated and are
44 presumably not in-tree yet, perhaps to mid-July if they're in by mid-month
45 (March), but allow removal before the end of the year.
46
47 --
48 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
49 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
50 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman