| 1 |
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 |
| 2 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi Devs, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or |
| 7 |
> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been |
| 8 |
> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to get_libdir |
| 11 |
> and people updating EAPI in ebuild without properly testing the |
| 12 |
> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is |
| 13 |
> not updated to handle it solves it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Never liked to wait for a whole eclass update for a new eapi when I |
| 19 |
only use a couple functions from it that I have tested when updating an |
| 20 |
ebuild. |
Archives