| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:57:25 schrieb Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Johannes Huber <johu@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> scarabeus suggested the change "dev should use latest eapi when bumping" |
| 4 |
> >> to "dev must use latest eapi when bumping if not forbidden by eclasses". |
| 5 |
> >> He was asked to bring it up on the mailing lists, to get a better |
| 6 |
> >> definition of when what EAPI should be used. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I raised the issue through scarabeus, as in my opinion there is no reason |
| 9 |
> > to not use latest EAPI. So please discuss. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I can't say I'm a big fan of this. This requires forcing changes to |
| 12 |
> ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the |
| 13 |
> end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are |
| 14 |
> likely to be made anyway). The PM maintainers have chimed in that |
| 15 |
> there is no benefit to PM maintenance from this change. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> So, I can't really see what the upside of such a policy is. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
<rant> |
| 21 |
Let's say, we as in Gentoo decide that we're completely sick of keeping all |
| 22 |
that old code out there adjusted to newer and newer gcc versions that are more |
| 23 |
and more critical towards minor details of the c++ standards. So, we declare |
| 24 |
that gcc-4.5 has to be enough for everyone, we'll just keep it in tree forever |
| 25 |
and dont bother anymore with all these superfluous "does not build with |
| 26 |
gcc-4.7" bugs. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well, newer gcc versions might have some very minor marginal advantages, but |
| 29 |
they require that we mess with code that has worked for ages. They require |
| 30 |
that we actually give some thought on the evolution of the language semantics |
| 31 |
or nag upstream, but we can't really be bothered with that because of limited |
| 32 |
time. Also, keeping gcc-4.5 will always (trivially) keep us backward |
| 33 |
compatibility... much more important than forward compatibility, should |
| 34 |
porting to a much never future version ever become necessary. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
For a real world analogy, serious quakes happen only once a century... why |
| 37 |
should we even bother with improving building codes? I mean, at some point in |
| 38 |
the future things will fall apart anyway. Better dont shake anything in |
| 39 |
between. |
| 40 |
</rant> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Sorry but I could not really resist... please take it with a grain of salt. |
| 43 |
However, seriously, ... |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Give me one non-trivial ebuild where you can absolutely guarantee that a bump |
| 46 |
from EAPI=0 to EAPI=4 will not enable any improvements (in readability, |
| 47 |
failsafe behaviour and code size for example). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Last point, if someday the tree contains ebuilds with 7-8 different EAPI's, |
| 50 |
we'll have succeeded in generating an unmaintainable mess (tm). It will not be |
| 51 |
any fun to look up things in PMS anew everytime you edit something. (Was the |
| 52 |
prayer to Paludis only required in EAPI=7 in src_prepare or in EAPI=8 in |
| 53 |
pkg_preinst?) This problem could however also be solved by selectively phasing |
| 54 |
out in-between EAPIs (i.e. deprecate EAPIs 1 and 3 asap). |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Cheers, |
| 57 |
Andreas |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 61 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 62 |
kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing |
| 63 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 64 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives