Tiziano � wrote:
> Hi everyone
> 
> With eapis 1 and 2 we introduced nice features but also a couple of new
> problems. One of them are the use dependencies when the package you
> depend on doesn't have the use flag anymore (see [1] for an example).
> 
> So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct
> improvements:

I'm replying to the top level because I don't think any of the ideas are 
particularly bad. However, I wanted to raise this point:

Should the next EAPI (as proposed) be a major "release" in terms of 
naming? And should it really be adding features? It is my opinion that 
EAPI bumps should move slower, one every year or so, in order to 
preserve upgradeable options for people that don't update often. 
However, I'm not going to let my opinion here block progress if it is 
needed.

I would propose that EAPI="2.1" be an extension of EAPI="2" and be 
limited to only bug fixes as presented instead of smashing the bug fixes 
in EAPI="3" along with new features.

With that said, can't bug fixes be implemented without an EAPI bump? I 
suppose that is not exactly safe in all cases.. =/ But, we should do a 
better job fixing "bugs" while the EAPI is in ~arch still. No, I don't 
have any ideas on how to accomplish that.. =P

(Don't let this post turn into bikeshedding wrt naming options, just 
throwing it out there without wanting to defend it too much)

-Jeremy