On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:46:56 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: >On 02/10/2014 09:23 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> The statement "Deprecating an EAPI can mean breakage" depends on >> what we mean by "deprecating." I'm assuming here we mean something >> like repoman won't allow commits at EAPI=1,2,3 but that ebuilds in >> the tree at those EAPI's will continue working. Eg. dosed which was >> deprecated in the EAPI 3 to 4 jump. > >Right now EAPI 1 and 2 are deprecated, which means repoman prints some >warnings that get ignored and nothing happens.
Not in my case. I EAPI-bump each ebuild to either EAPI-4 (base-system packages) or EAPI-5 where repoman complains about when I put my fingers on them... I hope I am not the only one doing this. >Going from the current state I would distinguish between deprecated >(=unwanted, but tolerated) and banned (not tolerated) > >> >> I think we should look at the question of deprecating EAPI's on and >> ad hoc basis with discussion on the list and a vote in the council. > >I think it's safe to deprecate the antepenultimate EAPI, and then do >the banning on a more delayed and controlled basis. > >Patrick > > -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
