Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:36:13AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so
> >> complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance...
> > 
> > <rant>Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line
> > in an argument...  If it isn't all that complicated or involved and it
> > just makes so much sense, then why do we bother to waste time asking
> > for it to be made policy, since obviously everybody will just do it
> > anyway...
> > 
> > Believe it or not, people who take up an opposing side in a debate
> > don't ALWAYS do it because they're simply dumber than you.  That is,
> > unless they're arguing with me...  :)  </rant>
> > 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would be happier if all ebuilds in the tree were EAPI4.
> On the other hand, Rich is right that making this a policy will have the
> opposite of the intended effect: developers just won't fix bugs in
> EAPI<4 ebuilds when they don't have time to do the EAPI bump (one could
> easily spend a few hours on this).
> 
> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs
> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug
> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is
> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump.

If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure.

If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's 
noise and it's annoying.  EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to 
move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but 
arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or 
legwork done if not) isn't helpful.  Kind of equivalent to zero-day 
bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness.

~harring