>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025, konsolebox wrote: >> +Conversely, removing support for an EAPI from the package manager can >> +be disruptive for users. Unofficial overlays and private repositories >> +often continue using older EAPIs long after their removal from the >> +main tree. Therefore, the timeline for dropping package-manager >> +support is more generous than that for use of EAPIs in repositories.
> What's the point of these supposedly generous long-term support for > old EAPIs when you're dropping support for them in eclasses like > distutils-r1? It's all silly and pointless. > Yes I've heard there's no obligation for eclass maintainers to support > old EAPIs. Same point applies. You might as well tell overlay owners > to not use ::gentoo's eclasses so these supposedly "long-term" support > become sensible. I'd suggest treating EAPI support in eclasses as a separate discussion. Let's not conflate it with EAPI support in package managers, which is the scope of this GLEP change. (And arguably, support by package managers is a prerequisite of _any_ long-term support.) Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
