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 9558C138010 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1CE5E043A; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E182CE01C9 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (pc-193-111-101-190.cm.vtr.net [190.101.111.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBB1733D7DA for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:54:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 14:54:12 -0300 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage Message-ID: <20120902145412.48f034a2@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50434AFB.9010503@gentoo.org> References: <50434AFB.9010503@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.11; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f8275ba8-0977-4a01-b3ab-b13f9973e512 X-Archives-Hash: 19fa0ccf19e40d19a0439f0fde8e747c On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:03:07 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 09/02/2012 12:52 PM, Vaeth wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> If I thought that bumping the EAPI would make my life as a > >> maintainer easier I'd just do it - I wouldn't need a policy to > >> tell me to do it. > > > > It is not only so much a question of whether it helps you as a > > maintainer but more whether it helps the user. And this is the case > > for all EAPIs which currently exist. > > > > I am surprised that nobody mentioned the following example: > > > > One of the arguments to introduce the user-patching code into EAPI=5 > > was that it should work for all packages - not randomly on some but > > not on others. So if in the course of time not all packages are > > bumped to at least EAPI=5, this goal cannot be reached by > > introducing the feature into the EAPI. > > global epatch_user has a downside which I think was not even really > discussed here unless I missed something. It could introduce many > bogus bug reports which are caused by user-applied patches, cause > it's easier now and you don't need to do it in an overlay. > The maintainer will need to catch this and asking which repo the > bugreporter did use is not sufficient. He will need the build log and > check if user patches got applied there. it is probably easy to add a big warning 'user patches have been applied' when emerge bails out because a build failed