Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:41:13 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > Well, that package maintainers are called developers on Gentoo isn't
> > helping the interpretation here; regardless of how one defines
> > those, both maintainers and PM implementers have to be taken into
> > account here.
> >
> > From quick thoughts the latter are a bit more affected than the
> > former, but perhaps Patrick can highlight what he sees as a burden.
> 
> You would think, but the reason I raised the question was that
> historically every time this has come up the package manager
> maintainers usually chime in and say that they don't consider it a
> problem.  I want to do whatever I can to make them happy since we are
> so desperately in need of more of them, but...

From my limited look at the code I've done so far in the small bit of
repoman work on the Portage team, as detailed in another mail I just
sent to you on this ML, I wouldn't consider it as a problem just now.

We for example have /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage/eapi.py to easily deal
with it, it's just that such checks would drop in that file and across
the Portage source code when the versions listed in those checks are no
longer used. It's currently reasonable to have this amount of checks,
but imagine it growing to what you would need for 10 versions; that'd be
a different story, but perhaps it is too early to wonder about this now.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D