[gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 193 bytes --]

solar reported that he had ebuild submissions blindly using EAPI=1 so we 
hopefully made the text better reflect that it should not be used unless 
  absolutely needed.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #1.2: foo.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

betelgeuse@pena /usr/portage $ cvs diff -r 1.44 skel.ebuild
Index: skel.ebuild
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/skel.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.44
retrieving revision 1.50
diff -u -r1.44 -r1.50
--- skel.ebuild 1 Jan 2008 09:27:26 -0000       1.44
+++ skel.ebuild 14 Mar 2008 02:22:02 -0000      1.50
@@ -12,11 +12,12 @@
 # generated to contain the correct data.

 # The EAPI variable tells the ebuild format in use.
-# Defaults to 0 if not specified. See current PMS draft for more details.
+# Defaults to 0 if not specified. The current PMS draft contains details on
+# a proposed EAPI=0 definition but is not finalized yet.
 # Eclasses will test for this variable if they need to use EAPI > 0 features.
-# Ebuilds should not define EAPI=1 unless they need to use features added
-# in that version.
-#EAPI=1
+# Ebuilds should not define EAPI > 0 unless they absolutely need to use
+# features added in that version.
+#EAPI=0

 # inherit lists eclasses to inherit functions from. Almost all ebuilds should
 # inherit eutils, as a large amount of important functionality has been


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 515 bytes --]

On Friday 14 March 2008 03:29:26 Petteri Räty wrote:
> solar reported that he had ebuild submissions blindly using EAPI=1 so we
> hopefully made the text better reflect that it should not be used unless
>   absolutely needed.

'Absolutely' is far too strong a word. A better wording would be 'unless 
useful', or 'unless it would improve the quality of the ebuild'. For 
non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using EAPI 1 where 
useful is ludditism.

-- 
Bo Andresen
Gentoo KDE Dev

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[RB]

>  non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using EAPI 1 where
>  useful is ludditism.

While most of us appreciate your desire to move forward, ad-hominem
attacks (however subtle) really only serve to damage your point.

That said, this is the typical developer-wants-shiny-object,
engineering-wants-stability drama played out day after day in
corporations worldwide, and nothing ever gets solved until someone
puts up.  Please - for the rest of the community's sake, get over
yourselves and your high ideals and spend some of this energy doing
something positive.  Like pushing for ratification/completion of
EAPI=0 so none of you have room to complain.  Until EAPI=2.


RB
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1368 bytes --]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:14:47 -0600
RB <aoz.syn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  non-system packages, the only thing stopping people from using
> > EAPI 1 where useful is ludditism.
> 
> While most of us appreciate your desire to move forward, ad-hominem
> attacks (however subtle) really only serve to damage your point.

You're aware that that's not his real name, right?

> That said, this is the typical developer-wants-shiny-object,
> engineering-wants-stability drama played out day after day in
> corporations worldwide, and nothing ever gets solved until someone
> puts up.

The stability issues, or lack there-of, in EAPI 1 are well understood
by those of us who were behind deciding what went into EAPI 1. There is
no issue with using EAPI 1 where appropriate for non-system packages.
EAPI 1 is a small, well defined, well understood set of additions to
EAPI 0.

> Please - for the rest of the community's sake, get over
> yourselves and your high ideals and spend some of this energy doing
> something positive.  Like pushing for ratification/completion of
> EAPI=0 so none of you have room to complain.

Really, ratification of EAPI 0 doesn't affect any of this. It makes no
more sense to say that we can't use EAPI 1 until EAPI 0 is ratified
than it does to say that we can't use EAPI 0 until EAPI 0 is ratified.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FYI clarifications to skel.ebuild EAPI usage

[Bernd Steinhauser]

Petteri Räty schrieb:
> solar reported that he had ebuild submissions blindly using EAPI=1 so 
> we hopefully made the text better reflect that it should not be used 
> unless  absolutely needed.
>
> Regards,
> Petteri
> # Eclasses will test for this variable if they need to use EAPI > 0 features.
> -# Ebuilds should not define EAPI=1 unless they need to use features added
> -# in that version.
> -#EAPI=1
> +# Ebuilds should not define EAPI > 0 unless they absolutely need to use
> +# features added in that version.
> +#EAPI=0
This is misleading. You should not use the term "EAPI > 0" here, because 
ebuild
writers will think, that the variable can be tested this way, which is 
wrong.
Although for ebuilds this isn't really important, it still is wrong. ;)

Bernd
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list