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 23475138010 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A01D3E064C; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:05:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6EE6E0587 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.145] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 191EA33D8C9 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <503F64D1.6000203@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:04:17 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120731 Thunderbird/10.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <1941775.YCGWEdgpfQ@elia> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5c2fdce8-21be-4f84-ab74-0082b5179d1a X-Archives-Hash: d694c9716903366a5162ec1335e0388e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/08/12 08:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Johannes Huber > wrote: >> >> EAPI 0 is more readable than EAPI 4? No benefit for maintainer? >> No benefit for user who wants to read the ebuild? Realy? > > Then why make it a policy? > ("Realy?" in the above specifies the statement was sarcastic) > If as you say there is a benefit to the maintainer, then you won't > have to hit them over a head for noncompliance. Just point out > that newer EAPIs make things easier, and they'll happily use the > new EAPIs if they agree. If they don't agree, who cares? > > You don't need a policy to tell somebody to do something in their > own interest. The main reason for policy is to get people to do > things that are in the interests of others. > The primary benefit to the policy that dev's should bump EAPI when bumping ebuilds is so that older inferior EAPIs can be deprecated and eventually removed from the tree. Take, for example, the sub-slot and slot-operator support that will hopefully be applied as part of EAPI=5 -- when this is integrated across the tree, there will be little to no purpose for revdep-rebuild and/or @preserved-libs. But this tree-wide integration would never happen if said policy didn't exist, ie, I think this is a good example of "interests of others". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlA/ZNEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAthAD/XDwdxGj/cDprcFUtPUtklPaU 6KbooOamqxFJrfVxMbgBAJ56bQ+TYrYQ+eSvV+38bknCsp1+bKWfwXa1GxSERJha =iaCP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----