Peter Alfredsen <email@example.com> said:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:41:58 +0100
> Matti Bickel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > A general question, that just popped into my head when i was reading
> > this: if i touch a ebuild which has EAPI=0, should i bump it to
> > EAPI=2?
> Only if you take the time to read through it and test that your revised
> ebuild will have the same functionality as the old one. That's why I
> wrote "when a new ebuild...". This should not be an automated thing,
> but rather a part of the basic bump-adjust-test maintenance cycle.
while i agree with what you say here, it is also important to take the
general EAPI roadmap into account. as we currently dont have one AFAIK,
we should make efforts to agree on one soon.
i doesnt make sense to introduce EAPI=2 into ebuilds, if we dont expect to
have en EAPI=2 capable package manager stable within a reasonable
as it really doesnt matter what i think, when portage-2.2 should go stable
i will not bore you with that, however, given that only portage 2.2
supports EAPI=2 it is relevant for the discussion of an EAPI roadmap.
in light of the current EAPI usage statistics, i would propose to
deprecate EAPI 1 (and 2) much earlier than EAPI 0.