From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OXmmH-0005cm-IO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:00:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E4F6E091A; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE59E08B1 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D20B1B4291 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:59:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.084 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.515, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id it80JSaclZVj for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0461B4100 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:59:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXmlJ-0005vj-Eh for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:59:25 +0200 Received: from static24-72-114-21.yk.rev.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.114.21]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:59:25 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-114-21.yk.rev.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:59:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:02:58 -0600 Message-ID: <20100710210258.2005f27c@gentoo.org> References: <4C37A114.9070604@gentoo.org> <4C381392.5050505@gentoo.org> <20100710083437.GA6598@hrair> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/8kYQWU+_/0g8vKl4R7r3V2D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-114-21.yk.rev.accesscomm.ca X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Archives-Salt: 8e400be7-1bd5-4b7a-b8ea-a0b536a8be59 X-Archives-Hash: 1efb6692870590acdc6e7bf236923100 --Sig_/8kYQWU+_/0g8vKl4R7r3V2D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:34:37 -0700 Brian Harring wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote: > > The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from > > eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council > > should set common rules for it. >=20 > Just adding a note on this one- the original technical reason for=20 > this policy (portage inability to run from just the saved env dump)=20 > is no longer an issue. >=20 > If people want to allow eclasses to have fluid APIs (specifically=20 > removal of functionality), that's a discussion that needs to start on=20 > the dev level. >=20 > Anyone got strong opinions on this one? I don't believe there ever was such a policy, except for pkg_{pre,post}rm because of the mentioned technical limitations (which were fixed in portage 2-3 years ago now). If there is such a policy then I've violated it on several occasions :). In fact, isn't the generally accepted method of deprecating an eclass to remove all functionality and replace it with a message in global scope and a "# @DEAD" tag? I don't see the advantage of keeping unmaintained broken code no one should use around in eclasses. You can argue that removing eclass functionality c= an potentially break ebuilds in overlays, but if you follow that line of reasoning then really we should never remove any package from the tree because it may be a dependency of something, somewhere. So I'd like to see a policy that treats public functions in eclasses the sa= me as the last rites policies for package removal: minimum 30 day deprecation period, mail to dev-announce, etc. --=20 fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design toolchain, wxwidgets to keep us from losing our minds @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 06= 62 --Sig_/8kYQWU+_/0g8vKl4R7r3V2D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkw5NGIACgkQiqiDRvmkBmLvBACfTpiCPGtgzlny9n2FJ8sc2tlH 4doAoJ5oMTjVKtPNiRyR3GBb446i1Mb/ =GPIH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/8kYQWU+_/0g8vKl4R7r3V2D--