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

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1575 bytes --]

El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:29 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
[...]
> > And finally, as already pointed out by Rich, you should not talk about
> > any specific EAPI you like/prefer/want to be used everyhwere, but
> > instead about the issue you want to solve. So just point out the issue
> > and ask the maintainer to fix it. If he uses a newer EAPI, good. If he
> > uses another solution, which also fixes the issue, also good. We should
> > not discuss about a specific way to solve some issues, since this is the
> > maintainers choice. Our goal should instead be to fix as many issues as
> > possible with our limited amount of time we have for Gentoo.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I have already pointed multiple examples where bumping eapi will help to
> improve things, not doing so because of that hypothetical problems you
> think could occur only leads us to current situation: a ton of autotools
> packages won't get --disable-silent-rules/--disable-dependency-tracking
> improvements because people doesn't even try to bump eapi, some more
> packages will hide utilities failing but not dying because of using old
> eapis, inconsistent blockers handling around the tree due using
> different eapis, packages still relying on dying in pkg_setup instead of
> setting proper USE deps, packages still using dohard and dosed, html
> files in /usr/share/doc being compressed because of old eapi usage, I
> even noticed past week a package still using ebeep.

Another case: all packages should benefit from mtimes preserving for
installed files since eapi3

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