On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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? +1. Because: 1. it makes it possible to change API safely with EAPI bump, including major refactorings, 2. it makes it possible for the eclass maintainer to confirm that the eclass is correctly ported to new EAPI, rather than some random developer with poor knowledge of eclass assuming it works fine, 3. it makes it possible to ban the eclass in a new EAPI to more effectively phase it out. This only reminds me of the cases when eclasses weren't calling eapply_user in EAPI 6 and caused ebuilds to fail. Because someone assumed that if his ebuild works in EAPI 6, then the eclass is certainly correct. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpM9h5Kp2bm4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
