1 |
On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 12:17 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> > > > > > On Mon, 05 Jul 2021, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > The agenda is still open for additional items that the council |
5 |
> > should |
6 |
> > discuss or vote on. For agenda items, please respond to this message |
7 |
> > on the gentoo-project mailing list. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Replying to my own message. :) |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Now that EAPI is supported by stable Portage (3.0.20-r6 went stable |
12 |
> on the last arch today), I would like to ask the council to deprecate |
13 |
> EAPI 6, both for ebuilds and for profiles. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> In the past, the council had also banned EAPIs. However, that didn't |
16 |
> make much of a practical difference because an EAPI cannot be added |
17 |
> to eapis-banned in layout.conf unless all ebuilds are gone. Maybe we |
18 |
> should have a rule like the following instead: |
19 |
> "A deprecated EAPI is considered banned when the Gentoo repository |
20 |
> no longer contains any ebuilds using it." |
21 |
|
22 |
While I understand your point, I agree with others that there is a value |
23 |
in having a non-technically-enforced ban, i.e. keeping the overall |
24 |
process as: |
25 |
|
26 |
1) deprecate the EAPI (i.e. "please avoid using this EAPI"), |
27 |
|
28 |
2) formally ban the EAPI (i.e. "do not use it in new ebuilds, unless you |
29 |
have |
30 |
a really good reason to"), |
31 |
|
32 |
3) entirely ban the EAPI (i.e. technically prevent ebuilds with it). |
33 |
|
34 |
I agree that technically 2) doesn't change much but I'd prefer if we |
35 |
could avoid "EAPI n is only deprecated, so it's fine to still use it!" |
36 |
argument. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Best regards, |
40 |
Michał Górny |