Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:26:39
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: My wishlist for EAPI 5 by Duncan <>
On 06/21/2012 04:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: >>>> POSIX Shell compliance >>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and can't >>> easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept having to >>> rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the dep. >>> >> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal >> with the package managers. > Additionally, this is extremely unlikely because a number of developers > insist on bash, to the extent that it would likely split gentoo in half > if this were to be forced. It wouldn't pass council. It's unlikely to > even /get/ to council. > > Openrc could move to POSIX shell because its primary dev at the time > wanted it that way and it's only a single package. However, even then, > doing it was controversial enough that said developer ended up leaving > gentoo in-part over that, tho he did continue to develop openrc as a > gentoo hosted project for quite some years. Now you're talking trying to > do it for /every/ (well, almost every) package, thus touching every > single gentoo dev. It's just not going to happen in even the medium term > (say for argument APIs 5-7ish), let alone be something practical enough > to implement, soon enough (even if everyone agreed on the general idea, > they don't), to be anything like conceivable for EAPI5. > > So just let that one be. It's simply not worth tilting at that windmill. > > (Arguably, multi-arch, while practical and actually working at least with > portage in an overlay, fails that last bit as well. If it was pushed, > perhaps for EAPI6 or 7, but it's just not practical to consider it for > EAPI5... unless you want to wait 3-5 years for EAPI5!) >
It is just a wish list. Anyway, people need to decide on what they want from a new EAPI before one is made. Once they decide, it should be possible to work out the details.