| 1 |
W dniu pon, 05.03.2018 o godzinie 17∶52 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> EAPI 2 removal bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/648050 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> It seems like tons of churn to update old stable ebuilds to a new |
| 6 |
> EAPI, just for its own sake. Take https://bugs.gentoo.org/648154 for |
| 7 |
> example. New ebuild added with EAPI 6 bumped from EAPI 2. Otherwise |
| 8 |
> functionally identical. Now asking arch teams to retest and |
| 9 |
> restabilize. Multiply by 100 or more. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> In the end we might get to delete some code from portage or an eclass? |
| 12 |
> Does this seem worth it? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Removing any code from package managers is unlikely, so that is not |
| 15 |
an argument. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Removing code from eclasses is actually beneficial. Please remember that |
| 18 |
EAPI changes are not isolated to the PMS, and eclasses also use them to |
| 19 |
kill deprecated features and make other breaking changes. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Both PMS and eclasses add new features in new EAPIs. Others have already |
| 22 |
bought some examples. To examples others have already mentioned you |
| 23 |
could add new econf options [1]. As a result, bumping EAPI frequently |
| 24 |
*improves* the quality of the package and sometimes fixes bugs (reported |
| 25 |
or unreported). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Most importantly, killing old EAPIs makes Gentoo easier for |
| 28 |
contributors. You may think it's normal to expect Gentoo developers |
| 29 |
to know 7 EAPIs and the differences between them. It might be normal for |
| 30 |
people who are around long enough to see most of them. |
| 31 |
But e.g. in proxy-maint we don't want to teach people about 7 EAPIs |
| 32 |
if only 1 or 2 of them are really relevant to what they're doing. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Finally, old EAPIs are simply more prone to mistakes. When the majority |
| 35 |
of 'current' Gentoo packages, i.e. the packages Gentoo developers |
| 36 |
usually touch, use new EAPIs, it is *really easy* to miss that some old |
| 37 |
package is using an ancient EAPI and start scratching your head why |
| 38 |
something does not work. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Killing old EAPIs proactively -- like many other proactive efforts -- |
| 41 |
has the advantage of making the work of others easier. If I end up |
| 42 |
having to fix a dozen old packages because of some reverse dependency, |
| 43 |
I'd really find it preferable that someone already did the EAPI bump for |
| 44 |
me and I wouldn't have to focus at the same time on fixing some issue, |
| 45 |
bumping EAPI, fixing tests and doing all the other long-overdue |
| 46 |
maintenance tasks. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
[1]:https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-13700012.3.8 |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Best regards, |
| 52 |
Michał Górny |
Archives