From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE291138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47847E0B68; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from albert.telenet-ops.be (albert.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.90]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B726E0B62 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:36:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by albert.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id Qec01n00M2khLEN06ec0NX; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:36:00 +0100 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:35:58 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: blueness@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules Message-ID: <20140210153558.66217d33@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 03663a02-14d2-436f-b5db-3d5f7e6e52fb X-Archives-Hash: 4ec0cc586b564fa5de7955f18eacd777 On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:23:51 -0500 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 02/10/2014 07:43 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > EAPI 4 becomes deprecated when/if there's a new EAPI allowed in-tree > > (EAPI 6, most likely) > > I am concerned about making this a "rule". Maybe rather a rule with exceptions, or a rather strong recommendation; as we've seen easier, sometimes a rule needs a revision. > While I think its okay for the 4/5/6 move, I'm not sure if it will > always be a good idea. 1) "Deprecating" an EAPI can mean breakage --- > see my next point. 2) To tie the deprecation of the older EAPI to the > introduction of a newer one can delay the introduction of the newer > one and possibly needed features. You will connect the question of > "are we ready to deprecate X" with the question "we need to introduce > Y for needed features a, b and c." It is hard to grasp for me for when features from a newer EAPI would delay the migration, do you have an example? > 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. Good point, we should probably split this up in multiple phases: 1) Repoman warns about deprecation of ebuilds with older EAPI. 2) Repoman bails out on the addition of _new_ ebuilds with older EAPI. 3) Repoman bails out on changes to _existing_ ebuilds with older EAPI. As a side note, we'll need to implement VCS diff support in repoman to check for this; as currently you can only check based the ebuilds. Nevertheless a hack is possible, but I think we should avoid that... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D