Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.

[Pacho Ramos]

El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 21:43 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> > I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
> > if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
> > changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if developers
> > agree on using latest eapi if possible. A more general solution (or
> > policy) needs to be worked as, otherwise, tree won't be moved to latest
> > eapi ever because we would need to:
> > - Periodically send bugs + patches
> > - Ask for permission to commit
> >
> > And that for every eapi bump
> >
>
> Either an ebuild has a responsive maintainer, which you can ask friendly
> to bump the EAPI because of feature X you would like to use or there is
> no maintainer, in which case you are free to touch/bump or last rite the
> ebuild.
>
> So i still dont see any need or requirement for a policy to
> force/require all devs to always use or switch to the latest avaidable
> EAPI. As already written in this thread, it would just mean less new
> ebuilds and less version bumps with such a policy. And i also prefer
> more work done with older EAPI versions around then less ebuilds/new
> versions with latest EAPI.
>

Seriously, what people is still having problems with handling eapi4? If
there are doubts about its usage, they should be asked and resolved
instead of ignored keeping ebuilds with older eapis. The only eapi that
probably adds no advantage for a lot of ebuilds is eapi3, but that is
not the case for eapi4 for example, that includes changes that should be
incorporated by most packages in the tree, some of them introduced by it
and others inherited from older eapis.

What is the advantage of using eapi2 over eapi4 for example? What "hard
to learn" change was included in eapi4 over eapi2?