On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:55:41 +0200 Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 02:40 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > > Is this actually documented anywhere? Or is this another of our > > "this-is-policy-because-everyone-knows-it's-policy" policies? I know there > > was a technical issue with removing pkg_*_rm functions way-back-when, but if > > there's no technical reason why functions can't be deprecated, and we're > > just > > clinging to policy in the name of policy, then I can't say I see the point. > > > > Big eclass changes should go through gentoo-dev so someone here will > point it out at least. Devmanual should document it so I challenge > anyone to submit a patch: > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html > git+ssh://git.gentoo.org/var/gitroot/devmanual.git > > Also policies should be changed when they don't make sense any more as I > said in my first response but I am not sure if that's the case here. The problem is I don't think this is actually a policy. One of the first projects I did as a developer, while still under probation, was a complete rewrite, in-place, of an eclass. Many functions were removed or renamed (done in an overlay of course, with a migration path). It was fully reviewed, on list, by senior devs at the time. I was told by several people that if there were any exported pkg_post_rm or pkg_pre_rm functions, they couldn't be touched because of portage limitations (those limitations were removed ~3 years ago now IIRC). So I wonder if this isn't just a years-long game of Telephone where one rule passed down by word of mouth got over-generalized and sufficiently twisted as to apply to everything. Nor do I think it's a particularly useful policy that keeps deprecated interfaces around forever. Careful removal with a long warning period shouldn't actually pose a problem. I think Arfrever's plan is reasonable. -- fonts, by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
