On 03/11/2012 03:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Patrick Lauer<patr...@gentoo.org> wrote:
I'd deprecate eapi2 too, we don't need 5 flavours around when we
effectively only want to support one (and eapi0 in a few places)
I wouldn't mind having a deprecation timeline for eapi3 too (now +6
months maybe?), but there's no need to rush things.
Is there really much of a benefit to this? I guess for anybody who
runs scripts to mass-manipulate ebuilds it might be helpful, but I
think all the package managers planned on supporting all the EAPIs for
quite a while longer.
I can imagine that this will lead to quite a bit of churn with
updating ebuilds and especially eclasses. If a package doesn't
require a feature in a newer EAPI, what is the point?
+1, it doesn't make any sense unless the request is coming from
dev-portage@ developers (Zac namely :-) as a part of code cleanup
I still find EAPI=1 useful myself when, for example, new GNOME 3
packages gets introduced to tree and there is a need to touch EAPI=0
ebuilds just to add SLOT deps.
