1 |
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 15:35 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
2 |
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Personally I see no major difficult in moving to eapi4, what exact |
4 |
> > difficult are you (I mean people still sticking with eapi0/1) seeing? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> It is harder than cp. :) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> If I write a new ebuild I would always target the most recent EAPI. |
9 |
> However, if I'm just doing a revbump, why fix what ain't broken? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> That is rhetorical. I do understand your logic. However, if it takes |
12 |
> me 15min to do something now, and it might take me 15min to do it |
13 |
> later, I'll take later every time since who knows if the package will |
14 |
> even be around later. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Rich |
17 |
> |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
It's not only about the difficulty problem (that I don't see so hard), |
21 |
it also about keeping packages behaving inconsistently around the tree |
22 |
due people keeping old eapis in their ebuilds: |
23 |
- What will occur if people is not forced to use eapi5 when "slot |
24 |
operator dependencies" are needed? Will people still need to already run |
25 |
revdep-rebuild for ages to be safer? |
26 |
|
27 |
- What about " --disable-silent-rules" eapi5 feature? Will we have part |
28 |
of the tree passing that option while other packages are still showing |
29 |
hidden output due old eapi usage? |
30 |
|
31 |
- What about src_test behavior? If packages are broken they should force |
32 |
-j1 for that packages... but if we don't push people to jump to last |
33 |
eapi, they will be tempted to simply skip the eapi bump to hide the |
34 |
problem. |
35 |
|
36 |
- Look to different blockers handling introduced in eapi2, if people |
37 |
keeps using older eapis, they will still make people to need to manually |
38 |
unmerge old package even if not needed. |
39 |
|
40 |
- Also look to packages still dying due unsatisfied USE dependencies |
41 |
instead of bumping to eapi >=2 and setting that deps properly. |
42 |
|
43 |
- And the different behavior of utilities dying, they will die on eapi4 |
44 |
but won't on older eapis and, then, that utils could still be not |
45 |
running at all but that being hidden. |
46 |
|
47 |
- Also the --disable-dependency-tracking parsing in eapi4, if it was |
48 |
added to run configure faster, that is nice, but packages still wanting |
49 |
to keep old eapi to not make the effort to bump it will still have a |
50 |
slower configure run. |
51 |
|
52 |
What I am trying to say is that, if we agree latest eapi is technically |
53 |
better, we need to try to get it used when possible (I mean, when, for |
54 |
example, eclasses are ported) for a "QA" reasoning. |