| 1 |
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:07:39 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 17:43 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió: |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:53:18 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4? |
| 9 |
> > > If there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved |
| 10 |
> > > instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi |
| 11 |
> > > that probably adds no advantage for a lot of ebuilds is eapi3, but |
| 12 |
> > > that is not the case for eapi4 for example, that includes changes |
| 13 |
> > > that should be incorporated by most packages in the tree, some of |
| 14 |
> > > them introduced by it and others inherited from older eapis. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What |
| 17 |
> > > "hard to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Were you around when eapi2 got out and we had a bunch of packages |
| 20 |
> > running econf twice because we wanted to quickly get rid of |
| 21 |
> > built_with_use? |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > A 5 mins fix is a 5 mins fix, if you include an eapi bump in those 5 |
| 24 |
> > mins then i expect crap to be committed to the tree or nothing at all. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Of course the idea wouldn't be to deprecate older eapis as soon as newer |
| 27 |
> one is released but, for example, do you really think forcing people to |
| 28 |
> use eapi4 now would cause so many problems? We could even create a team |
| 29 |
> (I would join to that one of course) to help in migration process. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Well, creating a team dedicated to the cause is a good idea anyway. |
| 32 |
Without a policy or anything like that, the team could at least work on |
| 33 |
improving compatibility of eclasses with new EAPIs. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives