1 |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb: |
3 |
>> Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell: |
4 |
>>> Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know |
5 |
>>> any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer |
6 |
>>> to check a) how the behavior of the new EAPI impacts the current ebuild |
7 |
>>> and b) how the behvaior of inherited eclasses change depending on EAPI. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> a) Easier eclass maintenance. |
10 |
>> Restricting the kde4 eclasses to EAPI 3 and 4 made the code indeed simpler. |
11 |
>> We'll raise that to 4 only soon (after fixing the remaining ebuilds in the |
12 |
>> tree.) |
13 |
> |
14 |
> An eclass, which includes helper commands like eutils or versionator |
15 |
> eclass wont benefit from it. Only specific eclasses (like your kde |
16 |
> example would benefit and for those, the related team can always decide |
17 |
> to bump all their packages to the wanted EAPI and then to bump the |
18 |
> eclass requirement. So no need to force this on everyone else. |
19 |
|
20 |
Agreed. I'm fine with asking maintainers to change EAPI in specific |
21 |
cases where there is a specific benefit. Diego sends me bug reports |
22 |
from time to time for whatever odd set of circumstances cause some |
23 |
kind of problem on a tinderbox, and when I can I fix the bugs and |
24 |
report upstream. The result is a better experience for all, even |
25 |
beyond Gentoo. If somebody wants to drop code in qt.eclass or |
26 |
whatever and my bumping EAPI makes their life easier they can always |
27 |
ask nicely and I'm happy to help out. What I don't see the value in |
28 |
is policies that extend the work beyond where the benefit lies. |
29 |
|
30 |
Rich |