On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:07:23 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 20 September 2009 13:28:40 Richard Freeman wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when > > > can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please. > > > > You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old > > EAPIs? Do you mean: > > > > 1. No longer ensuring that users who have pre-EAPI versions of portage > > have a clean upgrade path. > > > > or > > > > 2. No longer supporting EAPI=0/1 in package managers. Sorry for not being more clear. I meant the former. Should we keep an EAPI 0 version of system packages around indefinitely, and if not, what can we use as a rule of thumb to decide when it's okay to raise the required minimum. I'm not talking about dropping EAPI 0/1/etc support altogether, either from the tree or from PMs. > I think he means neither. We should no longer tolerate pre-EAPI2 ebuilds > being > added to the tree and should work on migrating all "old" ebuilds as the need > arises. No, that's a different discussion, though one that should also be had. Personally I only bump the EAPI when I need to, but I wouldn't argue against a policy that new ebuilds (bumps or new packages) should use EAPI 'x'. -- fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
