Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
Doug Klima wrote: Howdy all, We need to agree upon some syntax which we can mark an eclass as deprecated and potentially point to a replacement or multiple replacements. Discuss. Ok. I guess no one else has any feelings about this. Potentially doing something like: DEPRECIATED=$DEPRECATED $ECLASS at the top of each deprecated eclass. In the end $DEPRECATED would have a list of all the eclasses that are deprecated? Maybe even: DEPRECATED_MYECLASS=myreplacement would mean that myeclass.eclass is replaced by myreplacement.eclass ? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:43:56 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. I guess no one else has any feelings about this. Potentially doing something like: DEPRECIATED=$DEPRECATED $ECLASS Deprecated != depreciated. at the top of each deprecated eclass. In the end $DEPRECATED would have a list of all the eclasses that are deprecated? Maybe even: DEPRECATED_MYECLASS=myreplacement would mean that myeclass.eclass is replaced by myreplacement.eclass ? Well, that depends upon whether you want it to be part of the C/P-V metadata... If you do, it's a cache format change (and you can't easily do DEPRECATED_*). But then, deprecation is a property of the eclass, not an C/P-V. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:43:56 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. I guess no one else has any feelings about this. Potentially doing something like: DEPRECIATED=$DEPRECATED $ECLASS Deprecated != depreciated. You caught my typo. You clearly still got the meaning of the e-mail... at the top of each deprecated eclass. In the end $DEPRECATED would have a list of all the eclasses that are deprecated? Maybe even: DEPRECATED_MYECLASS=myreplacement would mean that myeclass.eclass is replaced by myreplacement.eclass ? Well, that depends upon whether you want it to be part of the C/P-V metadata... If you do, it's a cache format change (and you can't easily do DEPRECATED_*). But then, deprecation is a property of the eclass, not an C/P-V. Deprecation is a property of the eclass. Not of an ebuild. The point is to allow utilities and users/developers to clearly see that an eclass is deprecated and what they should be using in place of it. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:19:55 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that depends upon whether you want it to be part of the C/P-V metadata... If you do, it's a cache format change (and you can't easily do DEPRECATED_*). But then, deprecation is a property of the eclass, not an C/P-V. Deprecation is a property of the eclass. Not of an ebuild. The point is to allow utilities and users/developers to clearly see that an eclass is deprecated and what they should be using in place of it. Right. eclasses don't currently have metadata (and there's no easy way for them to have it, since eclasses can't be sourced standalone). If you make deprecation a metadata variable, there will be no way for a package manager to determine whether an eclass is deprecated unless it has an ebuild that uses that eclass. Is this a satisfactory restriction? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
On Monday 18 February 2008, Doug Klima wrote: Potentially doing something like: DEPRECIATED=$DEPRECATED $ECLASS at the top of each deprecated eclass. Adding deprecation info directly into the eclass file feels wrong to me. (Eclasses are free software after all and can be reused - ok, nobody will ever do that, but we're talking theory here - so we shouldn't put Gentoo policy in there.) What about /usr/portage/profiles/deprecated_eclasses looking like old_eclass_1,old_eclass_2:new_eclass_1,new_eclass_2 indicating that the old_eclasses have been deprecated by the new_eclasses. Having multiple eclasses deprecated by multiple eclasses may not be that common, but this kind of syntax allows for some grouping of related eclasses being replaced together. -- Torsten Rehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo AMD64 Arch Tester http://scel.info signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:19:55 -0500 Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that depends upon whether you want it to be part of the C/P-V metadata... If you do, it's a cache format change (and you can't easily do DEPRECATED_*). But then, deprecation is a property of the eclass, not an C/P-V. Deprecation is a property of the eclass. Not of an ebuild. The point is to allow utilities and users/developers to clearly see that an eclass is deprecated and what they should be using in place of it. Right. eclasses don't currently have metadata (and there's no easy way for them to have it, since eclasses can't be sourced standalone). If you make deprecation a metadata variable, there will be no way for a package manager to determine whether an eclass is deprecated unless it has an ebuild that uses that eclass. Is this a satisfactory restriction? A metadata.xml like file for eclasses could fit the bill. It could have both the maintainer info and the deprecation information among other things. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Deprecating an eclass
Howdy all, We need to agree upon some syntax which we can mark an eclass as deprecated and potentially point to a replacement or multiple replacements. Discuss. -- Doug -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
