| 1 |
Pacho Ramos schrieb: |
| 2 |
> I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find |
| 3 |
> if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that |
| 4 |
> changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if developers |
| 5 |
> agree on using latest eapi if possible. A more general solution (or |
| 6 |
> policy) needs to be worked as, otherwise, tree won't be moved to latest |
| 7 |
> eapi ever because we would need to: |
| 8 |
> - Periodically send bugs + patches |
| 9 |
> - Ask for permission to commit |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And that for every eapi bump |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Either an ebuild has a responsive maintainer, which you can ask friendly |
| 15 |
to bump the EAPI because of feature X you would like to use or there is |
| 16 |
no maintainer, in which case you are free to touch/bump or last rite the |
| 17 |
ebuild. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So i still dont see any need or requirement for a policy to |
| 20 |
force/require all devs to always use or switch to the latest avaidable |
| 21 |
EAPI. As already written in this thread, it would just mean less new |
| 22 |
ebuilds and less version bumps with such a policy. And i also prefer |
| 23 |
more work done with older EAPI versions around then less ebuilds/new |
| 24 |
versions with latest EAPI. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives