| 1 |
On 10/05/12 14:28, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04-10-2012 20:32:41 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> And what about current usage in the tree with current eapis? Regarding |
| 4 |
>>> IUSE_FLATTENED I have no problem with it, but will need to talk with |
| 5 |
>>> portage team also as they have the current implementation |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> And then, I think council should clarify what to do with current usages |
| 8 |
>> in the tree with eapi0-4 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Why should the Council clarify that? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> (Not that we're unwilling, but I don't see why Council should be the |
| 13 |
> initiator here.) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
For quite a while we have had ideas and discussions about deprecating |
| 17 |
older EAPIs - expected benefits being things like not remembering the |
| 18 |
little variations between the six official flavours. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I would suggest adding a repoman warning for adding new ebuilds with |
| 21 |
EAPI={1,2,3} now, turn that into an error for EAPI 1 in a short time (3 |
| 22 |
months?), then do the same for EAPI 2 a short while later with a longer |
| 23 |
timeline (as there are substantially more ebuilds with EAPI 2) |
Archives