Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net>
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 22:39:07
Message-Id: 20090919233849.1d7713f3@snowmobile
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup by Andrew D Kirch
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.
> 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? -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net>