1 |
El mié, 27-07-2011 a las 09:39 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
2 |
> Hello, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> As many of us already raged, the Python eclasses are delaying half |
5 |
> a year with support of EAPI=4. The reason for that is not actually |
6 |
> the lack of time or complexity of needed changes but willingness to use |
7 |
> the new EAPI as an excuse to turn the eclass API upside down. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> The question I'm raising here: should eclasses be actually allowed to |
10 |
> do *heavy* changes in their APIs in such cases? Or should the eclass |
11 |
> maintainers create a new eclass instead (python-r1.eclass or so)? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The main advantage I see in that is that devs are somehow forced |
14 |
> to migrate their ebuilds as soon as they bump EAPI in them. Taking |
15 |
> a look at a number of ebuilds still using git.eclass (instead of git-2) |
16 |
> this is a serious advantage. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> On the other hand, I find this idea very unclear. Why should two |
19 |
> ebuilds use completely different eclass variables just because they're |
20 |
> using two different EAPIs? More importantly, why is a dev forced to do |
21 |
> the migration in a random point when he/she wants to bump the ebuild |
22 |
> EAPI? I'd like to remind you that python eclass is still hard to read |
23 |
> for many of us. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> And why do we have to wait so long to use a new EAPI? We already had to |
26 |
> fix a lot of ebuilds when old EAPIs were banned in Python eclasses. We |
27 |
> wanted to bump the ebuilds to EAPI 4 then but the eclasses didn't |
28 |
> support it. And now it still doesn't come with EAPI 4 support. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> And keeping two different EAPIs in a single eclass file means probably |
31 |
> that older EAPIs are going to be banned at a random point once again. |
32 |
> Devs will have to pro-actively migrate their ebuilds, overlays will |
33 |
> break and so on. The usual procedure related to eclass removal wouldn't |
34 |
> apply. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> So, don't you think it would be better to simply add EAPI=4 support to |
37 |
> python eclass with no changes and start developing the new API in |
38 |
> python-r1? Devs could migrate then at any point they want (and have |
39 |
> time to!), and when Python team wants to get rid of the old eclass, |
40 |
> the usual removal procedure will apply. |
41 |
> |
42 |
|
43 |
About the concrete case of python eclass, per Arfrever's comment in bug |
44 |
report related with its eapi4 support, that support is already available |
45 |
in overlay, but not yet merged to the tree (probably because of the |
46 |
possible upcoming retirement of Arfrever :-/). What is preventing python |
47 |
team to merge eclass from overlay? |