From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages.
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:19:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350746397.12879.82.camel@belkin4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5082C001.1020607@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1881 bytes --]
El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 17:15 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribió:
[...]
> I am not talking about hypothetical problems, i am talking about a real
> thing: my limited amount of free time i am able and willing to spend for
> Gentoo. And i prefer spending it on fixing real bugs over spending
> additional time to bump the EAPI just for fun.
>
> For the points you see issues with:
> - dont miss, that one can also add those configure options in an ebuild
> without the requirement to use the EAPI.
> -Utilities failing but not dying? Only certain helper functions will die
> with EAPI-4, nothing else. And if in doubt, just add a " || die" after
> every call and be done with it. So also not related to the EAPI.
> -blocker handling is done by the PM, not the ebuild, so if you have a
> patch for a better UI output, PM maintainers will probably happily apply
> it, when you provide it.
> -for a die in pkg_setup instead of a USE dependency: Both ways will
> prevent you from continuing, the second one only has a unified UI.
> -I dont see any real problem with dosed and dohard, they are just
> wrappers around sed and ln, so what would improve if someone replaces
> the wrappers with calls to the wrapped tools?
>
> We could continue forever with this examples, so i will shorten my point
> of view:
>
> If i want/need an option, i will add it to the ebuild. If an option i
> want requires a newer EAPI, i will use the newer EAPI. If the current
> EAPI does offer all i need, i wont spend any additional time on the EAPI
> bump.
>
> If you want to do it differently for the packages you maintain, fine.
> Just dont try to force your preferred EAPI-handling on everyone else.
>
>
It's not just for fun, I have just replied to you in other mail, hope it
helps to explain better my position and why I thought bumping eapi would
be better.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-20 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-12 10:53 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages Ralph Sennhauser
2012-10-12 20:38 ` Walter Dnes
2012-10-12 20:41 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2012-10-12 20:45 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-10-12 21:02 ` Alexandre Rostovtsev
2012-10-13 3:10 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2012-10-13 6:28 ` Ralph Sennhauser
2012-10-17 5:42 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-17 17:34 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-17 19:00 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 4:07 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-18 13:36 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 15:49 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-18 17:49 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-18 19:05 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-18 19:35 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-19 17:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 17:51 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-19 18:09 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 18:47 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-19 19:32 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 19:43 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-19 19:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-19 20:39 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-19 20:47 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-20 6:04 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:09 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 14:29 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:53 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:15 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 15:19 ` Pacho Ramos [this message]
2012-10-20 15:17 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 15:57 ` Thomas Sachau
2012-10-20 15:24 ` Rich Freeman
2012-10-19 20:43 ` Alexis Ballier
2012-10-20 6:07 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 6:14 ` Michał Górny
2012-10-20 6:31 ` Pacho Ramos
2012-10-20 14:37 ` Peter Stuge
2012-10-19 4:09 ` Ryan Hill
2012-10-19 4:34 ` Zac Medico
2013-04-12 16:25 ` [gentoo-dev] Binary package dependencies for sub-slot-less EAPIs W. Trevor King
2013-04-12 18:38 ` Rich Freeman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1350746397.12879.82.camel@belkin4 \
--to=pacho@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox