On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 14/08/15 06:43 PM, Johannes Huber wrote: > > > > > > Am 08/15/15 um 00:19 schrieb Andrew Savchenko: > >> Hi, > > > >> While I have no objections about EAPI 4 deprecation (except > >> concerns mentioned above), I see no strong need for this also. > >> Just declare EAPI 5 as recommended. Having legacy support for > >> EAPI 4 will not hurt possible contributions. > > > > Just imagine that the Gentoo developer quiz doesn't contain > > question about ancient stuff. Would reduce the question count at > > least by some questions. Which could lower the barrier to step > > forward for some people. Or do we have enough developers? > > > >> Best regards, Andrew Savchenko > > > > > > So first of all, yes i believe all eclasses support EAPI5 by now. > > Secondly, though, conversion to EAPI5 is not actually trivial, there > are a couple of things, 'usex' related for instance, that also need > to be taken care of. If it was just a matter of running a sed -e > 's/^EAPI=4/EAPI=5/' on all in-tree ebuilds this would have been done > a long time ago. > > So although deprecation of EAPI4 is a nice thought, there is still > some work to be done. > > Finally, the gentoo developer quiz -should- still contain questions > about ancient stuff. There are still EAPI0 and EAPI2 ebuilds in the > tree at least. Why not deprecate those before we deprecate EAPI4? Just my opinion here but I think that we'd do better deprecating the oldest versions one at a time until they're all upgraded to the newest stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlXOkvMACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1VkQD/cBeJW7Go12EkpSDL86MGzcNJ > nHOBBHkdH9iQPCNfeo0BAO3v6rs7FHEIeJ7ze+JDFGqvJcZbsdcXZafRZaqbpwLE > =bh9T > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
