| 1 |
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4? |
| 6 |
> > If there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved |
| 7 |
> > instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi |
| 8 |
> > that probably adds no advantage for a lot of ebuilds is eapi3, but |
| 9 |
> > that is not the case for eapi4 for example, that includes changes |
| 10 |
> > that should be incorporated by most packages in the tree, some of |
| 11 |
> > them introduced by it and others inherited from older eapis. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What |
| 14 |
> > "hard to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Were you around when eapi2 got out and we had a bunch of packages |
| 17 |
> running econf twice because we wanted to quickly get rid of |
| 18 |
> built_with_use? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> A 5 mins fix is a 5 mins fix, if you include an eapi bump in those 5 |
| 21 |
> mins then i expect crap to be committed to the tree or nothing at all. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Of course the idea wouldn't be to deprecate older eapis as soon as newer |
| 26 |
one is released but, for example, do you really think forcing people to |
| 27 |
use eapi4 now would cause so many problems? We could even create a team |
| 28 |
(I would join to that one of course) to help in migration process. |
Archives