| 1 |
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:52:54 -0800 |
| 2 |
Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> EAPI 2 removal bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/648050 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It seems like tons of churn to update old stable ebuilds to a new |
| 7 |
> EAPI, just for its own sake. Take https://bugs.gentoo.org/648154 for |
| 8 |
> example. New ebuild added with EAPI 6 bumped from EAPI 2. Otherwise |
| 9 |
> functionally identical. Now asking arch teams to retest and |
| 10 |
> restabilize. Multiply by 100 or more. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In the end we might get to delete some code from portage or an eclass? |
| 13 |
> Does this seem worth it? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
New EAPI's don't just do nothing, some for example, add more power to |
| 17 |
users. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
EAPI6 is an especially significant example due to eapply_user becoming |
| 20 |
standardized. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
And with Perl packages at least, incrementing EAPI results in actual |
| 23 |
changes driven by the eclass: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
- Changes the names of various control variables |
| 26 |
- Makes perl tests on by default, and parallel by default ( previously |
| 27 |
required opt-in ) |
| 28 |
- Disables the legacy code path that kills the '.packlist' files, which |
| 29 |
are actually useful to some tools, and was the wrong place to kill |
| 30 |
those files in the first place. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Incrementing EAPI also functions as an indicator that legacy approaches |
| 33 |
and interfaces are moved away from, which can also signify an |
| 34 |
improvement in ebuild quality. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
In short, while it looks superficially useless, I'd argue that there's |
| 37 |
a lot of nuanced benefits. |
Archives