1 |
El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 09:36 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: |
2 |
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400 |
4 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> I think the whole developers-can't-handle-47-EAPIs thing is a red |
6 |
> >> herring. The fact that there are packages written in Erlang in the |
7 |
> >> tree doesn't cause me any issues even though I haven't had to do any |
8 |
> >> work in Erlang. If I ever wanted to maintain such a package then I'd |
9 |
> >> take the time to learn it as needed. Likewise, if I wanted to |
10 |
> >> maintain a package that used EAPI joe and I really prefer to work in |
11 |
> >> EAPI fred, then I'd revise it at my next convenience. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Well, it's not just about ebuilds you maintain. Think about something |
14 |
> > like the gcc-porting trackers where you have to touch a lot of ebuilds |
15 |
> > across the tree. You really do have to have a working knowledge of the |
16 |
> > differences between EAPIs to do so. My browser bookmark to the EAPI |
17 |
> > cheatsheet is one of the more frequently used as it is. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Can't you just ask the maintainers to fix their ebuilds? And if they |
20 |
> don't respond or at least cooperate, well, then treeclean them. I |
21 |
> don't think that library maintainers should have to bend over |
22 |
> backwards to fix reverse dependencies, within reason. If out of the |
23 |
> whole tree two packages are blocking an upgrade, give a deadline or |
24 |
> treeclean them. If we have 47 bazillion packages that don't work on |
25 |
> the newer lib, then slot it and bug upstream. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I do agree that trying to auto-mangle ebuilds from 47 different EAPIs |
28 |
> doesn't make sense. Just assign a bug to the maintainer saying "do |
29 |
> this to your ebuild, or get it on EAPI foo so that I can fix it, by |
30 |
> <date> or it is gone." The deadline is important - I've seen a |
31 |
> pattern on -dev where bugs linger without deadlines for months, and |
32 |
> then a deadline of two days is imposed, and then a big flame war |
33 |
> breaks out. Just set a deadline up-front and make it reasonable. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Rich |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many |
40 |
people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer |
41 |
ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also to not force it as older eapi for |
42 |
newer ebuilds (eapi3 changes look to be minor when compared with |
43 |
eapi2) ? |