Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:06:23
Message-Id: 1350587136.2447.47.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. by Rich Freeman
1 El jue, 18-10-2012 a las 13:49 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
2 > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
3 > > I didn't think eapi4 features were still "unfamiliar" to so many
4 > > people... let's say, what about deprecating eapi1, 2 and 0 for newer
5 > > ebuilds? Is eapi2 so unfamiliar also to not force it as older eapi for
6 > > newer ebuilds (eapi3 changes look to be minor when compared with
7 > > eapi2) ?
8 >
9 > This still involves the issue that what would be simple ebuild bumps
10 > turn into a need to make more substantial changes to an ebuild.
11
12 But that changes will save us from needing to move a lot of ebuilds to
13 newer eapis if some years later we decide to deprecate some of them. For
14 example, if every package using eapi1 is forced to be bumped to newer
15 eapi, we won't need to manually do that work in the future if we decide
16 to deprecate old eapis. Also, it's probably better to force new ebuilds
17 to use things like splitted configure phase instead of keeping with old
18 eapi0/1 src_compile one, also the same for deprecated things like dosed
19 and dohard. If there were valid reasons to ban then on newer eapi, I
20 think it's better to not allow people to still use old eapi to skip that
21 banning (or were they banned only for cosmetic reasons?)
22
23 >
24 > And the concern still exists that a policy that says all new ebuilds
25 > shall use EAPI foo might result in fewer new ebuilds. Sure, they'll
26 > have new and shiny fooness, but arguably I'd rather have more packages
27 > supported on older EAPIs then fewer packages supported on newer ones.
28 >
29 > If migrating to newer EAPIs is so simple, why aren't more doing it already?
30
31 Personally I see no major difficult in moving to eapi4, what exact
32 difficult are you (I mean people still sticking with eapi0/1) seeing? I
33 have re-read http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/eapi/index.html
34 and I can't see anything specially hard :/
35
36 >
37 > Rich
38 >
39 >

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies