From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:17:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200910090217.43072.patrick@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ACE6622.3010602@gentoo.org>
On Friday 09 October 2009 00:22:26 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> across a case that couldn't be done with EAPI 2 yet. Granted the atoms
> >> can be a bit cleaner with EAPI 3 but considering how much zmedico slacks
> >> in implementing it, it's best to do migrating now with EAPI 2 than EAPI
> >
> > Comments like these are not acceptable. Zac works his tail off on
> > portage. Please refrain from such comments in the future.
> > -Jeremy
>
> He has said himself that he is not especially interested in implementing
> EAPI 3 so slack at least to me seems like a good term.
I'm not sold on it either. Most devs barely know the difference between
different EAPIs (just extrapolating from the many questions I see e.g. on IRC)
(and I think they shouldn't have to know because we should be using one EAPI
only, but that's just my random opinion)
Most ebuilds are still EAPI0 - rough count gives me:
EAPI 0 - 19654
EAPI 1 - 1651
EAPI 2 - 5497
And that's with all the "forced" migrations for features like use-deps or the
removal of built_with_use. So unless there's some "strongly needed" features
there's no need for it. I can't remember any feature in the EAPI 3 list that
really looked useful to me, so not adding it now now now doesn't bother me at
all. Just causes more confusion for no real benefit. So who cares if it is
delayed by a few timeunits, there's much more important stuff to do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-09 0:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-29 13:32 [gentoo-dev] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup Petteri Räty
2009-10-07 11:21 ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-10-08 21:29 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-07 11:54 ` Stelian Ionescu
2009-10-08 21:34 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-08 22:03 ` Jeremy Olexa
2009-10-08 22:22 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-09 0:17 ` Patrick Lauer [this message]
2009-10-09 13:38 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-08 22:25 ` Tomáš Chvátal
2009-10-09 13:41 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-24 12:32 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] " Petteri Räty
2009-10-24 20:29 ` James Cloos
2009-10-25 9:48 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-26 23:21 ` James Cloos
2009-10-27 13:12 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-27 6:07 ` Ryan Hill
2009-10-27 7:02 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-10-27 13:09 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-27 13:46 ` Mike Frysinger
2009-10-27 18:46 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-28 2:31 ` [gentoo-dev] " Mike Frysinger
2009-10-28 9:51 ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-28 11:11 ` Alexis Ballier
2009-10-30 2:29 ` Doug Goldstein
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=200910090217.43072.patrick@gentoo.org \
--to=patrick@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