On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Hi Devs, >> >> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses (or >> strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it has been >> tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new EAPIs. >> >> We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to get_libdir >> and people updating EAPI in ebuild without properly testing the >> inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and die if eclass is >> not updated to handle it solves it. >> >> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? >> > > Never liked to wait for a whole eclass update for a new eapi when I > only use a couple functions from it that I have tested when updating an > ebuild. >
I think the idea is a sound one though. And there is no reason it couldn't be tweaked to give the option to set it at the function level and not the eclass level. This is also an argument for simplifying eclasses when it makes sense (I realize this will never be 100%). -- Rich
