On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:29:43 +0100 "Justin Lecher (jlec)" <j...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 16/11/15 10:14, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > Probably those that want to ban it should fix the(ir) tree so that > > developers have no pain in bumping to eapi6? > > Versioned APIs are made to have incompatible changes. What do you like > to see? deprecation warnings for some time or.. > Someone dropping all usages of that eclass from all ebuilds > which are using it so that the maintainer can bump without thinking? this would be preferred :) [...] > > While I agree we should move away from those eclasses, the "I > > decided to throw the crap at other developers with eapi6 without > > deprecation period" is a bit hard to grasp. Esp. when these > > eclasses were advertised as the way to go not so long ago... > > > > I don't really understand what deprecation you like to see? RepoMan scours the neighborhood... inherit.deprecated 1 x11-wm/xmonad-contrib/xmonad-contrib-0.11.2.ebuild: please migrate from 'base' (no replacement) on line: 10 these warnings have been there for ages and for several eclasses > We cannot > use EAPI=6 right now and when it starts to exist, nothing will be > broken. So you have some to time to adopt your thinking until you > write your first ebuild in EAPI=6. > > At which particular point do you seen problems coming up? What do you > think will make maintainers struggle with that change? Right. With our always decreasing, soon to be negative, number of open bugs, all those shiny areas where fellow developers spend more time looking for something to do rather than doing it, we should be thankful to have at least some ebuild rewrite to do ! :) More seriously, the problem is not in the technical way it is done (changing eclass API with EAPI is a nice proper way), but in adding useless burden.
