| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 17.08.2018 kell 15:15, kirjutas Alexis Ballier: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 21:36:56 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 16.08.2018 kell 14:27, kirjutas Brian Evans: |
| 6 |
> > > There are currently a handful of ebuilds using EAPI 7 and the |
| 7 |
> > > autotools |
| 8 |
> > > eclass. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > I believe that this eclass should be reviewed for adding BDEPEND |
| 11 |
> > > or |
| 12 |
> > > having BDEPEND replace the DEPEND statement as the default action |
| 13 |
> > > of |
| 14 |
> > > the |
| 15 |
> > > eclass. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > Other items might be needed, but that's doubtful. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > Someone please advise the best course of action and either do it |
| 20 |
> > > or |
| 21 |
> > > I will propose a patch based on the discussion. |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Could or did someone also check through all the other eclasses that |
| 25 |
> > don't have any global EAPI compatibility checks? |
| 26 |
> > For the future, maybe it's better to add such a check - just |
| 27 |
> > accepting |
| 28 |
> > 0-7 or so, but unsure about all these custom EAPIs out there, might |
| 29 |
> > force more eclass copying to some overlays. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> I don't really like that kind of checks: untested after usually small |
| 32 |
> changes != broken. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> IMHO a better solution could be to have council members review all |
| 35 |
> eclasses prior to approving an eapi and either adding a comment why + |
| 36 |
> a |
| 37 |
> die when used with the not-yet-approved-eapi if the eclass requires |
| 38 |
> changes or do nothing about it if it's fine. This has the double |
| 39 |
> advantage to give council members first hands experience with an eapi |
| 40 |
> before approving/voting it and ensures better migration when eapi is |
| 41 |
> approved. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I think that's a good idea, in some form, but that ship has sailed with |
| 44 |
EAPI-7 now and the request remains. I'll try to remember this for a |
| 45 |
future EAPI-8 in the future. |
| 46 |
I'd be glad to review things now, if I had time, but frankly I have |
| 47 |
much more important things on my plate right now (like getting other |
| 48 |
things to the point I can review and merge EAPI-7 support to some of |
| 49 |
the eclasses I maintain and unblock progress for more usage of it). |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Mart |
Archives