1 |
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> This is not about "having problems with handling eapi-X", this is just |
3 |
> about limited time and the choice where to spend that time. If you do |
4 |
> just a version bump, you often dont have to touch the ebuild at all, |
5 |
> just copy, test, commit and be happy. If you additionally require an |
6 |
> EAPI bump, this means to carefully check the ebuild, adjust it to the |
7 |
> new EAPI and additionally check, that the expected haviour is also the |
8 |
> one that happens. While doing this, i could also have fixed another bug |
9 |
> or have done another version bump. |
10 |
|
11 |
Or, more likely, you probably would just ignore the bug that requires |
12 |
an EAPI bump and leave the existing buggy version in the tree. Then |
13 |
you'd go work on something where your time could be more effectively |
14 |
spent. |
15 |
|
16 |
I've seen this at work all the time - "raising the bar" on quality (as |
17 |
measured by the pound of paperwork) often results in a lower quality |
18 |
system, because fixing bugs is much more expensive so bugs simply |
19 |
don't get fixed. |
20 |
|
21 |
Somebody raised the issue of slot dependencies earlier. I'm |
22 |
completely for a policy that states that the entire tree should be |
23 |
updated to take advantage of these where applicable. I wouldn't state |
24 |
it in terms of EAPI - I'd state it in terms of outcome. Make it a |
25 |
general call for action, and then after so much time have bugs filed |
26 |
when packages do not comply. I'd love to see Gentoo reach a point |
27 |
soon where users don't have to run revdep-rebuild. |
28 |
|
29 |
Focusing on outcomes is what I'm all about - forget about EAPIs - |
30 |
focus on what it is that we really want, and make those things that |
31 |
really matter. |
32 |
|
33 |
Rich |