| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:28:00PM +0900, Douglas Anderson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 22:25 +1300 schrieb Alistair Bush: |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> >> Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> >> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the |
| 7 |
> >> >> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the |
| 8 |
> >> >> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least |
| 9 |
> >> >> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the |
| 10 |
> >> >> situation to be discussed in the council. |
| 11 |
> >> >> |
| 12 |
> >> > |
| 13 |
> >> > Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you |
| 14 |
> >> > could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild |
| 15 |
> >> > compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI. |
| 16 |
> >> > (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.) |
| 17 |
> >> > |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> Doesn't that just add extra complexity for no gain. |
| 20 |
> > Yes, sure. I was just looking for a solution for the "we have countless .eapi-X after 10 years" problem. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> No one wants to be working with ebuild-29 or something like that in a |
| 23 |
> few years and trying to figure out which feature came in which EAPI. |
| 24 |
> Instead of bumping EAPI for each little change, save them up and bump |
| 25 |
> no more than once a year or less, each bump bringing in some major new |
| 26 |
> feature. With a little common sense and planning, we could make this a |
| 27 |
> non-issue and give ebuild authors and PM devs alike a little time to |
| 28 |
> get used to each change. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
There also is the angle that deploying g55 requires waiting at least a |
| 31 |
full stage release (~year, at least by the old standards) to ensure |
| 32 |
people aren't screwed by the repository changing formats |
| 33 |
(unversioned!) under their feet. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'd point out that g55 isn't even accepted (search the archives for |
| 36 |
the debates), but folks seem to be ignoring that and the issues of |
| 37 |
just flipping the switch... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
~harring, aka the "version the farking repo format so stuff like this |
| 40 |
can be done cleanly" guy |
Archives