>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:16 PM David Seifert <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that there are no ebuilds in the tree using this eclass and being >> in EAPI 0, 1 or 2 ( >> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/eapi-per-eclass/savedconfig.eclass/ >> ), wouldn't it make more sense to just whitelist EAPI >= 4 and clean up >> this backwards compatibility cruft instead?
> I'm fixing a bug with the least invasive change possible. I'm not > trying to rework the eclass. AFAICS, that backwards compatibility code consists of two case statements, and the chance that removing them would break anything is close to zero. So I wouldn't call it a "rework". :) I'd rather remove than update that code for deprecated EAPIs. No ebuild would ever use it, so your updated code would never be tested. Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
