[gentoo-dev] Re: Deprecation of python_version(), python_mod_exists(), python_tkinter_exists(), distutils_python_version() and distutils_python_tkinter() in EAPI <=2

[Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2165 bytes --]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:55:41 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 03/03/2010 02:40 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:

> > Is this actually documented anywhere?  Or is this another of our
> > "this-is-policy-because-everyone-knows-it's-policy" policies?  I know there
> > was a technical issue with removing pkg_*_rm functions way-back-when, but if
> > there's no technical reason why functions can't be deprecated, and we're just
> > clinging to policy in the name of policy, then I can't say I see the point.
> > 
> 
> Big eclass changes should go through gentoo-dev so someone here will
> point it out at least. Devmanual should document it so I challenge
> anyone to submit a patch:
> 
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html
> git+ssh://git.gentoo.org/var/gitroot/devmanual.git
> 
> Also policies should be changed when they don't make sense any more as I
> said in my first response but I am not sure if that's the case here.

The problem is I don't think this is actually a policy.  One of the first
projects I did as a developer, while still under probation, was a complete
rewrite, in-place, of an eclass.  Many functions were removed or renamed
(done in an overlay of course, with a migration path). It was fully reviewed,
on list, by senior devs at the time.  I was told by several people that if
there were any exported pkg_post_rm or pkg_pre_rm functions, they couldn't be
touched because of portage limitations (those limitations were removed ~3
years ago now IIRC).  So I wonder if this isn't just a years-long game of
Telephone where one rule passed down by word of mouth got over-generalized
and sufficiently twisted as to apply to everything.

Nor do I think it's a particularly useful policy that keeps deprecated
interfaces around forever.  Careful removal with a long warning period
shouldn't actually pose a problem.  I think Arfrever's plan is reasonable.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]