Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:19:46
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:31:22 -0400 > Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote: > >>> But it was an official Gentoo project, and it was used in a >>> repository run by the Gentoo KDE team. Remember that EAPI support >>> is needed to be able to uninstall a package that was installed with >>> a particular EAPI, so EAPIs can't be removed even when they're no >>> longer in use. >>> >> I can't agree here. While no process exists to remove deprecated EAPI >> functionality, this sort of thing should be noted in the NEXT EAPI >> RELEASED and via that method eliminated. >> > > Please explain what you mean. EAPIs are conceptually independent, and > don't deprecate each other in any kind of way, and future EAPI > releases can't retroactively change what previous EAPIs said. >
There's no reason why a subsequent EAPI cannot modify or remove behavior created in a previous EAPI.
>> This is a specifications document, not a history lesson covering past >> mistakes. >> > > Getting off-topic here, but which parts of kdebuild-1 do you think were > mistakes? Given how kdebuild-1 features are making their way into EAPIs > 2, 3 and beyond as Portage gains support for them, I'm sure you don't > mean that every feature was wrong, so which of the remaining ones do you > think shouldn't be adopted and why? >
kdebuild itself wasn't a mistake, that it made it in when it's not used was.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>