On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:39:48 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> >> Or do you have any concrete evidence that has_m64 is still used?
>
> > Nope. It is just that it is part of an API that we export and, since
> > we have easy means to drop it properly, why not doing so ? Esp.
> > since dropping it "improperly" doesn't seem to bring any
> > advantage.
>
> But we don't have such means.
has "${EAPI:-0}" 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 || die "${FUNCNAME}: don't use this
anymore"
isn't there a plan to have eqawarn into eapi7 ?
you would even be able to achieve removal of eutils inherit
[...]
> > The 5 years deprecation is irrelevant here: With C libraries, you
> > deprecate a symbol/function for a few years then bump soname when
> > dropping it. The equivalent here is removing it in a new EAPI after
> > a deprecation period.
>
> That's not equivalent. For C libraries there are releases and the code
> gets actually removed.
Eclasses can drop old EAPI support too.
[...]
Alexis.
