ons 2010-03-03 klockan 17:46 +0200 skrev Petteri Räty: > On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100 > > Tomáa Chvátal <scarab...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>> Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current > >>>> policy. If you want to do it, you should discuss about changing > >>>> policy. > >>> > >>> since when? > >>> > >> Since ever. > >> If you change eclass abi you need to rename it. > > > > No, that's not been the case 'since ever' at all. It used to be that if > > you changed or removed a function, you just had to make sure you didn't > > break anything. This was made more complicated by the way that eclasses > > in the tree were used for removing installed packages too, which is no > > longer an issue. > > > > You can't fix all possible overlays so you can only start removing > functions that are used for installations if we decide we don't care > about overlays. > > Regards, > Petteri >
I have start to question why should we care about overlays more then the actual portage tree? Take for example the kernel or Xorg. They give themselves a period of time to clean up their own code (i.e. kernel-modules, xorg-drivers) and then they release it as stable and tell users/distributors to upgrade. They do not wait for nVidia/AMD/other out-of-tree drivers/modules to catch up. Now if we say we have someone managing an overlay, and this person do miss this warning/die for half an year, then I would say they have nott done their homework and they are on their own. I do not see why we should wait unreasonable long periods of time because there may be someone broken somewhere. How long does Ubuntu wait for PPAs to catch up or do they expect the managers of the PPAs to actually follow development? How about Fedora?
