Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 14:54:12 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:03:07 +0200
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On 09/02/2012 12:52 PM, Vaeth wrote:
> > > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> > >
> > >> If I thought that bumping the EAPI would make my life as a
> > >> maintainer easier I'd just do it - I wouldn't need a policy to
> > >> tell me to do it.
> > >
> > > It is not only so much a question of whether it helps you as a
> > > maintainer but more whether it helps the user. And this is the
> > > case for all EAPIs which currently exist.
> > >
> > > I am surprised that nobody mentioned the following example:
> > >
> > > One of the arguments to introduce the user-patching code into
> > > EAPI=5 was that it should work for all packages - not randomly on
> > > some but not on others.  So if in the course of time not all
> > > packages are bumped to at least EAPI=5, this goal cannot be
> > > reached by introducing the feature into the EAPI.
> >
> > global epatch_user has a downside which I think was not even really
> > discussed here unless I missed something. It could introduce many
> > bogus bug reports which are caused by user-applied patches, cause
> > it's easier now and you don't need to do it in an overlay.
> > The maintainer will need to catch this and asking which repo the
> > bugreporter did use is not sufficient. He will need the build log
> > and check if user patches got applied there.
>
> it is probably easy to add a big warning 'user patches have been
> applied' when emerge bails out because a build failed

Yes, and it is definitely easier to nice them than the fact that user
has patched the ebuild silently.

That said, I do not really remember users ever doing bogus bug reports.
But well, every reason to complain is good, isn't it?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny