Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:57:25 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> scarabeus suggested the change "dev should use latest eapi when bumping" > >> to "dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses". > >> He was asked to bring it up on the mailing lists, to get a better > >> definition of when what EAPI should be used. > > > > I raised the issue through scarabeus, as in my opinion there is no reason > > to not use latest EAPI. So please discuss. > > I can't say I'm a big fan of this. This requires forcing changes to > ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the > end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are > likely to be made anyway). The PM maintainers have chimed in that > there is no benefit to PM maintenance from this change. > > So, I can't really see what the upside of such a policy is. >
<rant> Let's say, we as in Gentoo decide that we're completely sick of keeping all that old code out there adjusted to newer and newer gcc versions that are more and more critical towards minor details of the c++ standards. So, we declare that gcc-4.5 has to be enough for everyone, we'll just keep it in tree forever and dont bother anymore with all these superfluous "does not build with gcc-4.7" bugs. Well, newer gcc versions might have some very minor marginal advantages, but they require that we mess with code that has worked for ages. They require that we actually give some thought on the evolution of the language semantics or nag upstream, but we can't really be bothered with that because of limited time. Also, keeping gcc-4.5 will always (trivially) keep us backward compatibility... much more important than forward compatibility, should porting to a much never future version ever become necessary. For a real world analogy, serious quakes happen only once a century... why should we even bother with improving building codes? I mean, at some point in the future things will fall apart anyway. Better dont shake anything in between. </rant> Sorry but I could not really resist... please take it with a grain of salt. However, seriously, ... Give me one non-trivial ebuild where you can absolutely guarantee that a bump from EAPI=0 to EAPI=4 will not enable any improvements (in readability, failsafe behaviour and code size for example). Last point, if someday the tree contains ebuilds with 7-8 different EAPI's, we'll have succeeded in generating an unmaintainable mess (tm). It will not be any fun to look up things in PMS anew everytime you edit something. (Was the prayer to Paludis only required in EAPI=7 in src_prepare or in EAPI=8 in pkg_preinst?) This problem could however also be solved by selectively phasing out in-between EAPIs (i.e. deprecate EAPIs 1 and 3 asap). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
