| 1 |
On Saturday 21 of March 2009 21:53:16 Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:21:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and |
| 7 |
> > > migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until |
| 8 |
> > > EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Uh. Why? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has |
| 13 |
> which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, so we don't |
| 14 |
> have to rewrite tons of things. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Spend more time to teach them. It's easier to developers make sure they do |
| 18 |
things ok than users spending their time to figure out what's wrong. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Personally i don't like the idea of deprecating EAPI0 since it may break many |
| 21 |
servers. Eg. our border router at work isn't upgraded regulary. I spent much |
| 22 |
time lately to upgrade it with problems like portage vs. bash and so. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So the last thing i'd like to see now in portage is implementing your |
| 25 |
proposal. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely aren't |
| 28 |
> > in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. Making 1 or |
| 29 |
> > 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting existing things? |
| 30 |
> > That's just an accident waiting to happen. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> What kind of accident do you expect to happen? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Patrick |
Archives