On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: >> Hello, >> >> As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half >> a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually >> the lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use >> the new EAPI as an excuse to turn the eclass API upside down. >> >> The question I'm raising here: should eclasses be actually allowed to >> do *heavy* changes in their APIs in such cases? Or should the eclass >> maintainers create a new eclass instead (python-r1.eclass or so)? >> >> The main advantage I see in that is that devs are somehow forced >> to migrate their ebuilds as soon as they bump EAPI in them. Taking >> a look at a number of ebuilds still using git.eclass (instead of git-2) >> this is a serious advantage. >> >> On the other hand, I find this idea very unclear. Why should two >> ebuilds use completely different eclass variables just because they're >> using two different EAPIs? More importantly, why is a dev forced to do >> the migration in a random point when he/she wants to bump the ebuild >> EAPI? I'd like to remind you that python eclass is still hard to read >> for many of us. >> >> And why do we have to wait so long to use a new EAPI? We already had to >> fix a lot of ebuilds when old EAPIs were banned in Python eclasses. We >> wanted to bump the ebuilds to EAPI 4 then but the eclasses didn't >> support it. And now it still doesn't come with EAPI 4 support. >> >> And keeping two different EAPIs in a single eclass file means probably >> that older EAPIs are going to be banned at a random point once again. >> Devs will have to pro-actively migrate their ebuilds, overlays will >> break and so on. The usual procedure related to eclass removal wouldn't >> apply. >> >> So, don't you think it would be better to simply add EAPI=4 support to >> python eclass with no changes and start developing the new API in >> python-r1? Devs could migrate then at any point they want (and have >> time to!), and when Python team wants to get rid of the old eclass, >> the usual removal procedure will apply. >> > > About the concrete case of python eclass, per Arfrever's comment in bug > report related with its eapi4 support, that support is already available > in overlay, but not yet merged to the tree (probably because of the > possible upcoming retirement of Arfrever :-/). What is preventing python > team to merge eclass from overlay? >
AFAIK, the EAPI4 support in the overlay is EAPI 4-python, that almost certainly will never come to gx86, and some guys are trying to port the functionality to raw EAPI4, IIRC. Regards, -- Rafael Goncalves Martins Gentoo Linux developer http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
