| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 30/08/12 08:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber <johu@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? |
| 9 |
>> No benefit for user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Then why make it a policy? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
("Realy?" in the above specifies the statement was sarcastic) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> If as you say there is a benefit to the maintainer, then you won't |
| 17 |
> have to hit them over a head for noncompliance. Just point out |
| 18 |
> that newer EAPIs make things easier, and they'll happily use the |
| 19 |
> new EAPIs if they agree. If they don't agree, who cares? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> You don't need a policy to tell somebody to do something in their |
| 22 |
> own interest. The main reason for policy is to get people to do |
| 23 |
> things that are in the interests of others. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when |
| 28 |
bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and |
| 29 |
eventually removed from the tree. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Take, for example, the sub-slot and slot-operator support that will |
| 32 |
hopefully be applied as part of EAPI=5 -- when this is integrated |
| 33 |
across the tree, there will be little to no purpose for revdep-rebuild |
| 34 |
and/or @preserved-libs. But this tree-wide integration would never |
| 35 |
happen if said policy didn't exist, ie, I think this is a good example |
| 36 |
of "interests of others". |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlA/ZNEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAthAD/XDwdxGj/cDprcFUtPUtklPaU |
| 42 |
6KbooOamqxFJrfVxMbgBAJ56bQ+TYrYQ+eSvV+38bknCsp1+bKWfwXa1GxSERJha |
| 43 |
=iaCP |
| 44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives