On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200
Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach
> > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get
> > people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 and
> > 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old style and the
> > latter use DEPENDENCIES.
>
> With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy.
depstr=cat/foo
case $EAPI in
*-dependencies) DEPENDENCIES="build+run: $depstr";;
*) DEPEND="$depstr"
RDEPEND="$depstr";;
esac
Yes, eclasses supporting more than one EAPI is crazy and we should
create a new eclass for every EAPI :)
> > After some time has passed, it could be decided to kill the less
> > useful one, say in EAPI 8, and get only one 'latest' EAPI again.
> > This decision doesn't need to be left only to the council, but
> > since it affects everyone it could be a vote from all the dev
> > community.
>
> Why the dev community only? We have many active contributors who
> aren't devs and who work hard with ebuilds. It's *their* time which
> will be wasted on rewriting dependencies into new form, not yours.
It seems we have a different definition of 'dev community'. That's true
we have well established voting procedures for gentoo devs or foundation
members, but feel free to propose one for the rest of contributors.
> > There is also the possibility that a consensus will never be reached
> > and that the two styles will have to live forever, but after all,
> > the EAPI concept is made for this.
>
> I believe the correct concept is 'fork'. And that's what Exherbo did.
An EAPI is a fork of the ebuild API already. Exherbo is not a fork as
far as I know, or at least not more than Gentoo is a Redhat fork
because it can process rpm's.
A.
