| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Adding EAPI 1 and 2 ebuilds is forbidden. (repoman-fatal) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Does "adding" in this case include revbumps? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> More than two supported EAPIs is an unneeded burden on developers. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Is this really a generally held belief? I don't find it a burden that |
| 9 |
ebuilds in the tree may use various EAPIs. I could see how they make |
| 10 |
scripted mass-updates to ebuilds more difficult, though I'm not sure |
| 11 |
how much of an issue this is in practice. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I could also see how supporting many EAPIs could be a burden on |
| 14 |
package managers, but if that is a concern I'd be interested in |
| 15 |
hearing from these maintainers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
My sense is that deprecating probably makes sense, but banning should |
| 18 |
only be done if in reaction to a particular problem. Repoman warnings |
| 19 |
call attention to the issue so that the maintainer is aware and can |
| 20 |
take the appropriate action, but without restricting their actions. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Now, if people are actually impacted by all the EAPIs I don't mind |
| 23 |
pushing harder to get rid of some. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives