| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Stable Portage supports EAPI 6 since 2016-01-17, i.e. since 26 |
| 4 |
>> months. So we would be somewhat on the early side. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Not that it's less than the supported upgrade path. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yes, I don't think that we have a problem there. Just noting that's |
| 9 |
it would be sooner than for all previous EAPIs. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
>> What worries me more is that deprecation of EAPI 5 would apply to |
| 12 |
>> profiles too. However, all profiles are still at EAPI 5 at this |
| 13 |
>> point, and I don't see any value in upgrading them to EAPI 6. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> That's a fair argument. However: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> 1. Does deprecation really mean anything in terms of profiles? Even |
| 18 |
> in the context of EAPI bans we explicitly stated that it affects new |
| 19 |
> packages and EAPI bumps. I think deprecating it for ebuilds is still |
| 20 |
> meaningful even if profiles would stay EAPI 5. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
OK, but then we should clearly state this. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> 2. Do we want to keep profiles EAPI 5 indefinitely? If we consider |
| 25 |
> it a goal to reduce the number of EAPIs in use, I think it would be |
| 26 |
> reasonable to bump profiles to EAPI 6 proactively, even if it |
| 27 |
> doesn't change anything. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The only effect this has is that it can impede some users' upgrade |
| 30 |
path. Or is there any feature in EAPI 6 that is needed in profiles? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Another way to keep the number of EAPIs limited would be to skip |
| 33 |
EAPI 6 for profiles. We have done that for EAPIs 3 and 4 previously |
| 34 |
(i.e., all previous and current profiles were EAPI 0, 1, 2, or 5). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Ulrich |
Archives