| 1 |
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which |
| 6 |
> > eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, |
| 7 |
> > so we don't have to rewrite tons of things. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI forward. That's |
| 10 |
> not a reason to modify existing things. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The added complexity of having a dozen eapis does not offer any benefits to |
| 13 |
the average developer. Limiting the amount of complexity tends to reduce the |
| 14 |
amount of errors, be it simple developer mistakes or unexpected interaction |
| 15 |
errors between different EAPIs in the package manager. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely |
| 18 |
> > > aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. |
| 19 |
> > > Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting |
| 20 |
> > > existing things? That's just an accident waiting to happen. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > What kind of accident do you expect to happen? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get changed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next day? Hey, that |
| 27 |
sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers? How rude! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So what technical reason(s) do we have to keep archaic EAPIs around forever? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Patrick |
Archives