On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Hey all, > > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately.
Does 'several' in this case mean more than one? Please correct me if I'm mistaken but the only change I can think of were the changes in python-single-r1. > It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the > changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a > widely used eclass it breaks overlays with little to no notice; > especially since we do not require developers to be subscribed to this > mailing list. > > I do agree that overlay authors are on their own to fix things, but we need to > find a way to notify them when a breaking change is going into a widely > used eclass and give them time to adjust their ebuilds. > > If the old way of doing things cannot be supported > along side the new way the correct path forward is a new version of the > eclass then a lastrites on the old version. That would give overlay > authors time to switch to the new eclass. > > If the old and new way can be supported in the same code base, a > reasonable way forward is to allow both ways to exist while ::gentoo is > migrated to the new code path then do the equivalent of a lastrites for > the old code path so overlay authors can adjust their ebuilds. > The lesson was learned. If a similar change would be necessary in the future, I will bump the eclass instead. I don't understand why you bring that today. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
