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

[Ryan Hill]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:36:27 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> > Well, it's not just about ebuilds you maintain.  Think about something
> > like the gcc-porting trackers where you have to touch a lot of ebuilds
> > across the tree.  You really do have to have a working knowledge of the
> > differences between EAPIs to do so.  My browser bookmark to the EAPI
> > cheatsheet is one of the more frequently used as it is.
>
> Can't you just ask the maintainers to fix their ebuilds?  And if they
> don't respond or at least cooperate, well, then treeclean them.

Seriously, no you can't.  I think you greatly underestimate the number of
ebuilds in the tree that don't have an actual maintainer, and the
availability of maintainers for those that do.  If I had to wait for people
to fix stuff on their own we'd still be on gcc 4.4.

> I do agree that trying to auto-mangle ebuilds from 47 different EAPIs
> doesn't make sense.  Just assign a bug to the maintainer saying "do
> this to your ebuild, or get it on EAPI foo so that I can fix it, by
> <date> or it is gone."

So I can twiddle my thumbs for months waiting for something to happen or I
can take 2 minutes to look at the EAPI spec.

And I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in forcing people to update their
ebuilds just to suit my particular needs. They're the maintainer, they can
run their shop however they see fit.  I'm not going to try to get something
removed just because I can't be bothered to remember a few details.

Anyways, we're seriously getting off topic here.  I don't think anyone
objected to removing the EAPI 0 requirement for system packages (and in
reality no one follows it anyways.  Even portage is EAPI 3).


-- 
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets          we were never more here, expanse getting broader
@ gentoo.org                          but bigger boats been done by less water