From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A15138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36A2421C052; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CD221C044 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (230.Red-2-137-43.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.43.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B875833D7D4 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <5082C001.1020607@gentoo.org> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> <20121017220707.02c6f5ac@gentoo.org> <1350575341.2447.40.camel@belkin4> <1350587136.2447.47.camel@belkin4> <1350667312.12879.11.camel@belkin4> <20121019145105.4927316b@gentoo.org> <1350670155.12879.22.camel@belkin4> <20121019154733.31b2284c@gentoo.org> <1350675125.12879.44.camel@belkin4> <5081AD7B.1040100@gentoo.org> <1350676398.12879.50.camel@belkin4> <5081BA9E.2080907@gentoo.org> <1350713099.12879.54.camel@belkin4> <5082B07C.2030805@gentoo.org> <1350743387.12879.70.camel@belkin4> <5082C001.1020607@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-s16uelzYGkpy43QuHx1g" Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:19:57 +0200 Message-ID: <1350746397.12879.82.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: e703569c-b28b-4192-9132-ea71256f3d2b X-Archives-Hash: 1583eabe842bd85ac60303ec39690a7f --=-s16uelzYGkpy43QuHx1g Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El s=C3=A1b, 20-10-2012 a las 17:15 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribi=C3=B3: [...] > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > We could continue forever with this examples, so i will shorten my point > of view: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 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. --=-s16uelzYGkpy43QuHx1g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlCCwR0ACgkQCaWpQKGI+9SF7wCeIWu6kB5YEh97oA8E4upeC933 moEAn1OnFuLY9Z3dXGHgmzfQe8r6EWlV =ukbL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-s16uelzYGkpy43QuHx1g--