| 1 |
On 08/14/2017 03:39 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:20:26 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:26 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 6 |
>> <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Portage supports sets, but the PMS has no mention. Then there is |
| 9 |
>>> debate on what they are. Creating so much noise it drowns the bug |
| 10 |
>>> request and makes it invalid. Despite the need still existing, and |
| 11 |
>>> PMS lacking anything on sets. |
| 12 |
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Just the needs I have with portage are stalled, marked as invalid. |
| 15 |
>>> No discussion for inclusion in PMS. Like documenting sets. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Ah, well, that's the main mystery of this thread solved. Thanks. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That is the tip of the iceberg, not the main problem itself. I have |
| 20 |
> never been a fan of EAPI, or the resulting PMS, etc. Having been around |
| 21 |
> before such existed, I do not believe it has helped Gentoo and in fact |
| 22 |
> maybe the opposite. Why EAPI 0 stuff is in tree, or very old EAPIs. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Now becoming more real issues rather than just a dislike of EAPI. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
I'm unaware of any other way to introduce progressive changes to an API |
| 27 |
without literally rewriting every ebuild. Versioned APIs are good APIs, |
| 28 |
and give developers (both inside and outside Gentoo) something they can |
| 29 |
depend on and, most importantly, predict. If there was just one EAPI, |
| 30 |
you'd need to consult git log or some other construct to figure out the |
| 31 |
API version an ebuild was written against. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The fact we still have older EAPI ebuilds is one of manpower and |
| 34 |
(dis)interest. I don't see anyone trying to prevent (or encourage) EAPI |
| 35 |
upgrading across the tree. Generally, we wait until a package needs a |
| 36 |
revbump/version bump and/or has serious breakage (and thus needing a |
| 37 |
rewrite) before bumping EAPI. Some jumps in EAPI, for simple packages, |
| 38 |
are painless. Others are a nightmare. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I see no other way to support the 1m+ ebuilds that have been written |
| 41 |
since Gentoo's inception in an unambiguous, reference-able way. In fact, |
| 42 |
I'd argue if you don't version your APIs, you're not designing them |
| 43 |
correctly. APIs *will* change; building a version number into the API |
| 44 |
ensures the consumers of said API are aware of changes. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
That said, yes, it'd be nice if every ebuild was EAPI 6, but that is a |
| 47 |
huuuuge amount of work that nobody seems interested in, for questionable |
| 48 |
gain. The work would just be repeated when the next EAPI is approved. |
| 49 |
The way it works now is more organic and better representative of the |
| 50 |
state of Gentoo development, for better or worse. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
It's good to see you taking part in constructive discussions! That's not |
| 53 |
intended as sarcasm. I mean it. Thanks for taking part. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
~zlg |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 59 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 60 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives