Am Freitag, 31. August 2012, 11:03:06 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: > 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).
Words of wisdom, nothing to add. Greetings. > Cheers, > Andreas Cheers, -- Johannes Huber (johu) Gentoo Linux Developer / KDE Team GPG Key ID F3CFD2BD
