> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021, David Seifert wrote:
> Those use cases don't necessitate keeping the eclass though?
I don't see why possible removal of the eclass at some unknown time in
the future should block improving it now.
Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 2021-10-03 at 12:30 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 03 Oct 2021, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>
> > If they are not, I think it would be reasonable to consider removing
> > CVS from the tree on 2022/01/01.
>
> I disagree. It is still useful as a package even if it hadn't any
>
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> If they are not, I think it would be reasonable to consider removing
> CVS from the tree on 2022/01/01.
I disagree. It is still useful as a package even if it hadn't any
reverse dependencies. For example, it is needed when doing conversions
of
Can we verify the consumers of this eclass are indeed still using CVS in
the year 2021?
If they are not, I think it would be reasonable to consider removing CVS
from the tree on 2022/01/01.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller
---
eclass/cvs.eclass | 17 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/cvs.eclass b/eclass/cvs.eclass
index a8e5ee4cc9a0..2868cb31f317 100644
--- a/eclass/cvs.eclass
+++ b/eclass/cvs.eclass
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
# @ECLASS:
