1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Following the discussion within the QA team, I'd like to ask the Council |
4 |
> to clarify whether EAPI 4 ban applies to revision bumps as a result of |
5 |
> dependency changes? |
6 |
|
7 |
> I think the key point in banning EAPIs is that the maintainer (or |
8 |
> generally, someone caring about the package in question) should be |
9 |
> responsible for the EAPI bump. I don't think anybody should be forced |
10 |
> to do that when in middle of large batch of changes (read: when I only |
11 |
> touch the package because it's blocking me). |
12 |
|
13 |
> In this particular case, I'm thinking of revbumps due to dependency |
14 |
> changes. Say, if I do a change in a dependency *I* maintain, and have |
15 |
> to fix a large number of revdeps, I don't think it's fair to expect me |
16 |
> to EAPI-bump some packages I don't maintain. The main difference is |
17 |
> that we're talking of dep change + revbump that can be linted via |
18 |
> pkgcheck/repoman vs. EAPI bump that needs full scale testing. |
19 |
|
20 |
EAPIs are being banned after a deprecation period, which typically is |
21 |
two years. So I guess one can expect packages that run into the ban not |
22 |
to be very actively maintained. |
23 |
|
24 |
Looking at the plots [1] (especially the third plot from the top), |
25 |
I don't see any change in slope for EAPI 0 in 2016-01 or for EAPI 4 |
26 |
in 2018-04. So arguably, the "banned" state doesn't give any additional |
27 |
incentive to update an ebuild, as compared to the "deprecated" state. |
28 |
After your proposed change, the difference between the two states would |
29 |
be even more blurred. |
30 |
|
31 |
Maybe we should revisit the concept, and ban EAPIs only when their last |
32 |
ebuild has left the tree, i.e., when the EAPI is added to eapis-banned |
33 |
in layout.conf? |
34 |
|
35 |
Ulrich |
36 |
|
37 |
[1] https://www.akhuettel.de/~huettel/plots/eapi.php |