[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] savedconfig.eclass: clean up ED and EROOT usage
From:       Mike Gilbert <floppym () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2019-05-24 5:56:19
Message-ID: CAJ0EP41jT8o43vmPNnkNiPSDnOzG85a=w_sS+Se2THYXDfC64A () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:24 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:16 PM David Seifert <soap@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Given that there are no ebuilds in the tree using this eclass and being
> >> in EAPI 0, 1 or 2 (
> >> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/eapi-per-eclass/savedconfig.eclass/
> >> ), wouldn't it make more sense to just whitelist EAPI >= 4 and clean up
> >> this backwards compatibility cruft instead?
>
> > I'm fixing a bug with the least invasive change possible. I'm not
> > trying to rework the eclass.
>
> AFAICS, that backwards compatibility code consists of two case
> statements, and the chance that removing them would break anything is
> close to zero. So I wouldn't call it a "rework". :)
>
> I'd rather remove than update that code for deprecated EAPIs. No ebuild
> would ever use it, so your updated code would never be tested.

Again, I'm fixing a bug. Removing EAPI 0-2 compatibility is
unnecessary to fix the bug.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]