Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2483 bytes --]

El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 15:47 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió:
[...]
> > Because it will add even more work, I mean:
> > - I catch a package using and old eapi and, then, still not passing
> > --disable-silent-rules option. => First problem, I need to notice that
> > package, there are packages I simply won't notice because I don't
> > merge them ever or, simply, I don't notice that option is not being
> > used.
> 
> i dont see that many blockers of bug #429308 ; it probably doesn't even
> reach 1% of packages using old eapis. perhaps because silent rules are
> not enabled by default afaik.

It was only an example, anyway, I think bugs were stopped to be reported
due that option being suggested for eapi5 inclusion (and even older
eapis, but it was rejected if I don't misremember).

Think in other examples like --disable-dependency-tracking, I am talking
in general.

> 
> > - I need to report a bug per each package using old eapi => I would
> > need to report a ton of bugs for bumping eapi that, probably, I could
> > have directly bumped myself if I would be allowed to (I already do it
> > in my maintained packages and maintainer-needed ones, but not for
> > others as maybe their maintainers dislike...)
> >
> > - Maintainer need to check that bug and commit the change or reject
> > the bump (in that case we would be blocked if maintainer doesn't bump
> > it for some strange reason). There are also some devs really slow to
> > reply.
> 
> filling a bug has one advantage you forgot: training fellow
> developers. if you say simply bumping the eapi will get improvements for
> free (whatever they are) to the maintainer, then she will be very happy
> to bump it i'd guess and have learnt that its good practices to do so.
> 

I thought all developers should know how to manage eapis.


> if you volunteer to do some conversions you can probably ask people to
> grant you permission to convert their ebuilds.
> 
> [...]
> 

I volunteer to do whatever conversions you want for every ebuild I find
if I have time... what prevents me from doing it is to commit that
changes to ebuilds not maintained by me and not knowing if developers
agree on using latest eapi if possible. A more general solution (or
policy) needs to be worked as, otherwise, tree won't be moved to latest
eapi ever because we would need to:
- Periodically send bugs + patches
- Ask for permission to commit

And that for every eapi bump

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]