| 1 |
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:25:19 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Should we have a stricter rule? Would such a rule help significantly |
| 5 |
> reducing the number of EAPI 0 ebuilds? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm not sure if that could help. The problem is with people and not |
| 8 |
with rules, and I think that if we try to force a stricter rule |
| 9 |
on people, they will simply disobey it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The problem is that some people actually believe that keeping stuff |
| 12 |
in EAPI 0 is going to help people upgrading. And they don't accept |
| 13 |
the fact that the upgrade path has been broken already and there's |
| 14 |
no real point in refusing to use newer features just to keep it |
| 15 |
a little less broken. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That said, I'm hoping that EAPI 5 profiles could change something. |
| 18 |
But I feel like some people will still oppose, assuming people will |
| 19 |
create custom profiles or something like that just to try to update |
| 20 |
their system. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
And I think our docs still don't mention how to upgrade |
| 23 |
from an ancient system. I've opened a bug suggesting to use chroot |
| 24 |
for that some time ago but haven't heard on it since. That said, I think |
| 25 |
we need a team of dedicated doc-writers. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives