| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which |
| 7 |
>> > eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, |
| 8 |
>> > so we don't have to rewrite tons of things. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI forward. That's |
| 11 |
>> not a reason to modify existing things. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The added complexity of having a dozen eapis does not offer any benefits to |
| 14 |
> the average developer. Limiting the amount of complexity tends to reduce the |
| 15 |
> amount of errors, be it simple developer mistakes or unexpected interaction |
| 16 |
> errors between different EAPIs in the package manager. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But you are still talking around the issue. Your logic is that "lots |
| 19 |
of EAPIs mean its harder to write ebuilds." |
| 20 |
I buy that argument (complexity implies difficult, no problem!) but it |
| 21 |
is a very generic argument. What about the complexity of many EAPIs |
| 22 |
are developers having issues with? What can we do to mitigate these problems? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Are people using IUSE_DEFAULTS in EAPI0? Are they not bumping the |
| 25 |
EAPI when adding src_configure to an ebuild? You claim there are all |
| 26 |
kinds of problems, I want to hear about them so we can fix the tools |
| 27 |
(aka repoman) to help point out where developers go wrong so they can |
| 28 |
fix them. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Over 80% of the tree is still EAPI0, so deprecating it seems a bad |
| 31 |
choice at this time, even for a 12-16 month timeline. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>> > > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely |
| 35 |
>> > > aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. |
| 36 |
>> > > Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting |
| 37 |
>> > > existing things? That's just an accident waiting to happen. |
| 38 |
>> > |
| 39 |
>> > What kind of accident do you expect to happen? |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get changed. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> ... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next day? Hey, that |
| 44 |
> sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers? How rude! |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I don't see the correlation between EAPI bumps and new herd testers. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> So what technical reason(s) do we have to keep archaic EAPIs around forever? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
None, luckily this is more than a technical project ;) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Patrick |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
Archives