> > <rant>
[...]
> > 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.
> 
> That is not an appropriate analogy, as I'm not suggesting that we
> refuse to support newer EAPIs.  I'm just saying that packages
> shouldn't be bumped just for the sake of bumping them.

Well I'm also not "suggesting" that we refuse to support newer gcc. Just, if a 
package does not build with newer, meh, why care. Take old one.
</rant>

> I might see some benefit for devs who routinely modify stuff that they
> don't maintain, but that should generally be kept to a minimum anyway.
>  If unsure how how to edit any particular ebuild, just file a bug!
> And if the package isn't maintained, then nobody will be bumping its
> EAPI anyway.

True but... we do have some fluctuation, and developers come and go. Who can 
update the ebuild better, someone who has maintained it for a while and is 
familiar with its details and the current eapis, or someone who has just 
picked up its pieces.

What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so 
complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... 

OK there may be miraculous eclasses (or one in particular) which change api 
radically from eapi to eapi, but I think we've already decided long time ago 
that this is a bad thing(tm) and should not be done. So let's hope it will not 
happen again. 

Other than that, I can not remember any ebuild where the EAPI bump alone took 
me more than 5min. Now take the frequency of new eapi's coming out, and 
compare it with the time that you need for a version bump of a package anyway 
(check upstream changelog, verify dependencies have not changed, do a test 
build, check for correct installation locations, ...)

As an additional bonus this keeps your memory fresh about all the great new 
features...

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to