1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
it's not clear to me what will be the consequences of this change. |
4 |
|
5 |
I am expecting good faith and that nobody will add an ebuild with |
6 |
deprecated EAPI just for fun or because maintainer prefers retro stuff. |
7 |
|
8 |
So looking at the reasons to bump without touching EAPI: |
9 |
|
10 |
a) Because of a changing dep/add slot operator |
11 |
|
12 |
b) Because of a security vulnerability. |
13 |
|
14 |
c) Other critical fixes which should reach users ASAP. |
15 |
|
16 |
In addition, all of this could happen by non-primary maintainer of the |
17 |
package. |
18 |
|
19 |
In case such a change would force anyone who is touching the ebuild to |
20 |
also fix the ebuild itself and migrate to latest EAPI -- even |
21 |
non-primary maintainers -- this would be far away from any reality and |
22 |
would cause pain for users in the end because people wouldn't touch |
23 |
these packages anymore. |
24 |
|
25 |
Keep in mind: Even if you are the primary maintainer, if you have |
26 |
foo-1.2.3 (stable for a while but using deprecated EAPI) and upstream |
27 |
just released foo-2.0 (a complete rewrite after 10 years, not yet ready |
28 |
for stabilization but added with latest EAPI) and you would now need to |
29 |
fix something critical in v1.2.3, this would be impossible because |
30 |
adding a patch/change deps is one thing, making an EAPI change _will_ |
31 |
require more testing which will prevent fast stabilization (remember |
32 |
when trailing slash behavior changed when we had no QA/CI checks able to |
33 |
catch most (still not all!) problems caused by incomplete EAPI bumps |
34 |
which had real impact when those ebuilds were merged to disk). |
35 |
|
36 |
If the above will be still allowed (and I believe it *must* be still |
37 |
allowed), we cannot get rid of step 2 -- we will need exemptions. |
38 |
|
39 |
I would really like to understand why people in Gentoo believe we should |
40 |
eliminate step 2 and also start enforcing policy. |
41 |
|
42 |
I agree with the latter: If we create a rule which isn't enforceable, |
43 |
it's not a rule and we shouldn't create it as such. But in this case, |
44 |
like said, I believe we need the exemptions, which makes it impossible |
45 |
to enforce something, so we cannot create a (new) policy in first place. |
46 |
|
47 |
But is it really a problem? Is such a new policy really needed? Are |
48 |
people really pushing lots of ebuilds with EAPIs we already marked as |
49 |
deprecated? If it is a real problem, do we actually have information why |
50 |
maintainers are doing that? Trying to understand why someone keeps using |
51 |
deprecated EAPI could help more like a policy which is more likely to |
52 |
cause more stale packages/ignored bugs assuming these maintainer didn't |
53 |
do that for fun or wilful ignorance. At the moment, the whole idea of |
54 |
creating a policy for that problem sounds like shooting sparrows with |
55 |
cannons. But maybe I am missing something... |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Regards, |
60 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
61 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |