James Cloos wrote: >>>>>> "Petteri" == Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> writes: > > Petteri> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to > Petteri> EAPI 2. If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we > Petteri> want to keep live ebuilds for them around? > > What possible benefit could be had from dropping ebuilds for no other > reason than their EAPI? >
The goal is to eventually get rid of built_with_use. > > Your initial post indicated that you only wanted to drop ebuilds which > were unlikely to be in use by users. Given the fact that most (all?) > live ebuilds are masked, any automated tests for the likelyhood that > an ebuild is in active use will, by definition, have false negatives > when dealing with live ebuilds. (Where false negative means unlikely > to be in use even though it, in fact, is in use.) > If you read the code I attached you will see that the reason live ebuilds show up in there is because adjutrix -U puts them to the list because they don't have any keywords. It follows my original reasoning that for live ebuilds the solution is to migrate them to EAPI 2. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
