| 1 |
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:03:07 +0200 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 09/02/2012 12:52 PM, Vaeth wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> If I thought that bumping the EAPI would make my life as a |
| 8 |
> >> maintainer easier I'd just do it - I wouldn't need a policy to |
| 9 |
> >> tell me to do it. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > It is not only so much a question of whether it helps you as a |
| 12 |
> > maintainer but more whether it helps the user. And this is the case |
| 13 |
> > for all EAPIs which currently exist. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I am surprised that nobody mentioned the following example: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > One of the arguments to introduce the user-patching code into EAPI=5 |
| 18 |
> > was that it should work for all packages - not randomly on some but |
| 19 |
> > not on others. So if in the course of time not all packages are |
| 20 |
> > bumped to at least EAPI=5, this goal cannot be reached by |
| 21 |
> > introducing the feature into the EAPI. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> global epatch_user has a downside which I think was not even really |
| 24 |
> discussed here unless I missed something. It could introduce many |
| 25 |
> bogus bug reports which are caused by user-applied patches, cause |
| 26 |
> it's easier now and you don't need to do it in an overlay. |
| 27 |
> The maintainer will need to catch this and asking which repo the |
| 28 |
> bugreporter did use is not sufficient. He will need the build log and |
| 29 |
> check if user patches got applied there. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
it is probably easy to add a big warning 'user patches have been |
| 32 |
applied' when emerge bails out because a build failed |
Archives