Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-03-11

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> If changing ebuilds to a banned EAPI is allowed, then we can as well
> lift the ban altogether: I could create a new ebuild under some
> allowed EAPI, then change it to a banned one, and it would still be
> within the rules.

In this case it was changed from 0 to 1.  I could see this argument if
it was changed from 5 to 1.  This also wasn't some attempt to find
loopholes in the rules.  If it were I'd recommend issuing a clear
declaration that the developer followed all the rules to the letter
and then punishing them for it anyway to make an example out of them.
If we're going to rely exclusively on rules to prevent antisocial
behavior I can guarantee that we're going to fail miserably, kind of
like the mortgage market in 2008.  Intent matters far more than
compliance.

Some EAPI changes are easier than others.  This one was only from
non-banned to banned because we haven't gotten around to banning EAPI
0 yet.  I'm all for doing that for non-toolchain ebuilds until we
figure out what to do with the toolchain.

There also isn't any deadline I can see for getting rid of EAPI
1/2/etc.  We're just trying to speed the process up so that it doesn't
take a decade (which is basically the current trend).

I guess I just don't see this as something likely to become a major
problem.  If it becomes one we can deal with it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm fine with clarifying rules/etc.  I just want
to avoid chasing after the perfect set of rules, because they'll never
be perfect, and that really isn't the source of problems in a
community.

Rich