| 1 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:51:11 +0100 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > >> The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get |
| 4 |
> > >> changed. |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > ... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next |
| 7 |
> > > day? Hey, that sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers? |
| 8 |
> > > How rude! |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I don't see the correlation between EAPI bumps and new herd testers. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Well, ciaran said that the same thing happens that always happens |
| 13 |
> when lots of ebuilds get changed. Last time I saw that happen (think |
| 14 |
> KDE4) we got some nice herd testers plus a new dev or two, so I am |
| 15 |
> confused too. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And a massive amount of breakage, some of which still isn't fixed, yes. |
| 18 |
Have a look at bugzilla sometime. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Anyway. Most of the "porting" effort (assuming no other issues |
| 21 |
> sneaking in) would be adding a "EAPI=1" line to ebuilds, which could |
| 22 |
> be done "lazily" on version bumps. There's no rush to get it killed |
| 23 |
> now now now, but in a year we might be at EAPI 5, and then I don't |
| 24 |
> want to be the one writing the docs that split apart what features |
| 25 |
> are where and what syntax is valid and all that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Fortunately, you won't be. As the person who probably will be, I can |
| 28 |
assure you that killing off EAPI 0 won't help in the slightest. It |
| 29 |
won't mean we can remove all mention of EAPI 0 from the documentation, |
| 30 |
since package managers need to support EAPIs indefinitely for |
| 31 |
uninstalls. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives