On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 14:54:12 -0300 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:03:07 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On 09/02/2012 12:52 PM, Vaeth wrote: > > > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > >> If I thought that bumping the EAPI would make my life as a > > >> maintainer easier I'd just do it - I wouldn't need a policy to > > >> tell me to do it. > > > > > > It is not only so much a question of whether it helps you as a > > > maintainer but more whether it helps the user. And this is the > > > case for all EAPIs which currently exist. > > > > > > I am surprised that nobody mentioned the following example: > > > > > > One of the arguments to introduce the user-patching code into > > > EAPI=5 was that it should work for all packages - not randomly on > > > some but not on others. So if in the course of time not all > > > packages are bumped to at least EAPI=5, this goal cannot be > > > reached by introducing the feature into the EAPI. > > > > global epatch_user has a downside which I think was not even really > > discussed here unless I missed something. It could introduce many > > bogus bug reports which are caused by user-applied patches, cause > > it's easier now and you don't need to do it in an overlay. > > The maintainer will need to catch this and asking which repo the > > bugreporter did use is not sufficient. He will need the build log > > and check if user patches got applied there. > > it is probably easy to add a big warning 'user patches have been > applied' when emerge bails out because a build failed Yes, and it is definitely easier to nice them than the fact that user has patched the ebuild silently. That said, I do not really remember users ever doing bogus bug reports. But well, every reason to complain is good, isn't it? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
