On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200 Ralph Sennhauser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600 > Ryan Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing > > EAPI 1 would be a better idea. > > I'm not for forced EAPI bumps anytime soon, but I expect EAPI 0 to be > gone from tree in 3-5 years once the EAPI=0 requirement is lifted. How many packages in the tree don't define EAPI at all? It's been a while since I looked, but I remember it was a pretty big number. Maybe things have changed. > Currently we have only 6 official EAPIs which is still manageable to > remember the details of each. Though it might be confusing for new > developers. Once we are at 20 EAPIs it will be an issue also for > seasoned folks. Agreed. We will definitely have to do some pruning at some point. > Therefore deprecation is a given, how to go about it is certainly up to > discussion. What do you see as an acceptable path here? I think an EAPI becomes a candidate for removal when the number of packages using it becomes small enough that a sufficiently motivated/bored/gullible person could take on the task of porting them all to a newer EAPI. EAPI 0 is our baseline (all EAPIs are defined as "EAPI 0 plus/minus foo") and thus should never* be removed. Anything else is fair game. *for varying lengths of never. If it becomes completely irrelevant then yeah just boot it. -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgets we were never more here, expanse getting broader @ gentoo.org but bigger boats been done by less water
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
