1 |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Michael Mol schrieb: |
3 |
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>>> |
6 |
>>>> The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when |
7 |
>>>> bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and |
8 |
>>>> eventually removed from the tree. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> What is the benefit from removing the old EAPIs? |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> I can answer this one...removing old EAPIs simplifies code for things |
13 |
>> which need to be EAPI-aware. There are no bugs in code that doesn't |
14 |
>> exist. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Like package managers? |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Sorry, but this is not true, since you can never assume, that older |
20 |
> EAPIs dont exist any more (even a simple EAPI-0 ebuild, which never |
21 |
> needed a bump, is enough), so older EAPI versions have to be supported |
22 |
> forever. |
23 |
|
24 |
I would assume that's what auditing is for. Unless I'm sorely mistaken |
25 |
(and I may be; I don't know much at all about eclasses), it should be |
26 |
fairly simple to script through the tree to find any eclasses or |
27 |
ebuilds which express a dependency on an EAPI of a given level, |
28 |
presuming the expression is of a standard form. |
29 |
|
30 |
Compile a list of existing ebuilds which depend on old EAPIs, and |
31 |
you've got a TODO list. (eclasses, I don't know; I don't know if |
32 |
eclasses explicitly express EAPI compatibility in metadata) Once that |
33 |
list is cleared, yes, you can assume there are no ebuilds with a |
34 |
specified EAPI of 0. I'd presume it would have been made widely known |
35 |
that new ebuilds shouldn't use the old EAPI by that point, and so |
36 |
support for the deprecated EAPI level can be abandoned. |
37 |
|
38 |
Out-of-tree ebuilds pose their own problems, but that's a matter for |
39 |
the managers of the relevant overlays. |
40 |
|
41 |
Now, for the million-dollar question: Who should do the work? My |
42 |
answer would be "whoever wants it done." Whoever wants the work done |
43 |
can go through their audit list and submit the relevant patches to the |
44 |
maintainers. Whether that's a team of twenty people or the work of an |
45 |
individual with a shell script and a lot of time on his hands, that's |
46 |
where that kind of work belongs. Now, if a maintainer rejects the |
47 |
patch, then the submitter can fix the patch to the maintainer's |
48 |
specifications. If the maintainer rejects the patch on some principle, |
49 |
that's an issue that can be raised and dealt with rationally at the |
50 |
time it happens. I imagine most maintainers would welcome assistance, |
51 |
especially if it means simplifying future work they may need to do. |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
:wq |