| 1 |
On Sat, 2006-22-07 at 04:43 +0900, Chris White wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> This said, the following are recommendations: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1) Create aliases to the new functions, then at some |
| 6 |
> yet-to-be-determined point, kill the aliases and bomb on the scripts |
| 7 |
> (this suffers from procrastination). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 2) Make an official release with the new function names and no aliases, |
| 10 |
> as well as the soon to come docs. I sort of like this method because |
| 11 |
> those with official portage tools can adjust their scripts, and simply |
| 12 |
> alter the depend atoms for >= (new API versions) and <= (old versions), |
| 13 |
> effectively forcing/preventing upgrades. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So please, throw your .02 $currencies in on this. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Chris White |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I could go either way with porthole. Although I have had little time to |
| 20 |
work on things lately, it would not be to hard to patch it if any names |
| 21 |
were changed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But isn't #1 what is normally done when things are deprecated in |
| 24 |
libraries (I know portage wasn't initially a library, but has become |
| 25 |
one) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Just post any changes here so anyone monitoring this list can update |
| 28 |
their code accordingly. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
What I've done in porthole in the past is to wrap changes in a "try:, |
| 31 |
except:" pair to maintain functionality with either version. Although I |
| 32 |
could test the portage version and set the alias accordingly (probably |
| 33 |
better overall as well). That reminds me, I think it's time to remove a |
| 34 |
few old ones. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Brian <dol-sen@×××××.net> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives