Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

[Johannes Huber <johu@gentoo.org>]

> I can't say I'm a big fan of this.  This requires forcing changes to
> ebuilds that offer no actual benefit to either the maintainer or the
> end-users (changes that actually have some benefit to either are
> likely to be made anyway).  The PM maintainers have chimed in that
> there is no benefit to PM maintenance from this change.

EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? No benefit for 
user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy?

> So, I can't really see what the upside of such a policy is.
> 
> The downsides are several - you're taking code that works and fiddling
> with it, perhaps creating code that doesn't work.  You're forcing that
> development to take place in the newest EAPI, which is also the
> version which the everybody has the least experience with (likely less
> documentation online as well).

devmanual is fine.

> Developers have only a limited amount of time, and this will eat into
> it.  The result is likely to not be new shiny ebuilds that use the new
> EAPIs, but rather old rusty ones that still use the old EAPI but also
> which contain other bugs, since they don't get touched at all (since
> touching them triggers the new policy).

You dont need to touch the old ebuild, but if you are touching it for example 
a version bump, a bug fix etc you should be able to do the EAPI bump as long as 
you have done the ebuild quizzes ;)

> For a real-world analogy - look at the result of well-intended laws
> that require ADA compliance and such on building modifications.  The
> result is often stuff like kids taking classes in modular trailers and
> such because in order to add an extension to the building you need to
> bring the entire building up to code (and not just the new part).  The
> result isn't more elevators and ramps - but the use of hacked together
> solutions to work around the policy.

Examples?

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Essential part of software development is refactoring to get the code in a 
modern state. 
 
> Now, if a maintainer actually needs a feature of a new EAPI, or an
> ebuild contains a bug that can only be addressed by bumping it, then
> by all means the maintainer should be revising the ebuild.  Then there
> is actually an upside to balance the cost.

True.

> Rich

Greetings,
-- 
Johannes Huber (johu)
Gentoo Linux Developer / KDE Team
GPG Key ID F3CFD2BD