| 1 |
> I can't say I'm a big fan of this. This requires forcing changes to |
| 2 |
> ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the |
| 3 |
> end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are |
| 4 |
> likely to be made anyway). The PM maintainers have chimed in that |
| 5 |
> there is no benefit to PM maintenance from this change. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? No benefit for |
| 8 |
user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> So, I can't really see what the upside of such a policy is. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The downsides are several - you're taking code that works and fiddling |
| 13 |
> with it, perhaps creating code that doesn't work. You're forcing that |
| 14 |
> development to take place in the newest EAPI, which is also the |
| 15 |
> version which the everybody has the least experience with (likely less |
| 16 |
> documentation online as well). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
devmanual is fine. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will eat into |
| 21 |
> it. The result is likely to not be new shiny ebuilds that use the new |
| 22 |
> EAPIs, but rather old rusty ones that still use the old EAPI but also |
| 23 |
> which contain other bugs, since they don't get touched at all (since |
| 24 |
> touching them triggers the new policy). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You dont need to touch the old ebuild, but if you are touching it for example |
| 27 |
a version bump, a bug fix etc you should be able to do the EAPI bump as long as |
| 28 |
you have done the ebuild quizzes ;) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> For a real-world analogy - look at the result of well-intended laws |
| 31 |
> that require ADA compliance and such on building modifications. The |
| 32 |
> result is often stuff like kids taking classes in modular trailers and |
| 33 |
> such because in order to add an extension to the building you need to |
| 34 |
> bring the entire building up to code (and not just the new part). The |
| 35 |
> result isn't more elevators and ramps - but the use of hacked together |
| 36 |
> solutions to work around the policy. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Examples? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Essential part of software development is refactoring to get the code in a |
| 43 |
modern state. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Now, if a maintainer actually needs a feature of a new EAPI, or an |
| 46 |
> ebuild contains a bug that can only be addressed by bumping it, then |
| 47 |
> by all means the maintainer should be revising the ebuild. Then there |
| 48 |
> is actually an upside to balance the cost. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
True. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> Rich |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Greetings, |
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Johannes Huber (johu) |
| 57 |
Gentoo Linux Developer / KDE Team |
| 58 |
GPG Key ID F3CFD2BD |
Archives