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 F1564138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67EB3E04C1; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4CC21C015 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:57:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.20] (p548D3FCC.dip.t-dialin.net [84.141.63.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tommy) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D36A6335E2D for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:57:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5082C9F9.7020206@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:57:45 +0200 From: Thomas Sachau User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Firefox/15.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.12.1 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] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> <20121017220707.02c6f5ac@gentoo.org> <1350575341.2447.40.camel@belkin4> <1350587136.2447.47.camel@belkin4> <1350667312.12879.11.camel@belkin4> <20121019145105.4927316b@gentoo.org> <1350670155.12879.22.camel@belkin4> <20121019154733.31b2284c@gentoo.org> <1350675125.12879.44.camel@belkin4> <5081AD7B.1040100@gentoo.org> <1350676398.12879.50.camel@belkin4> <5081BA9E.2080907@gentoo.org> <1350713099.12879.54.camel@belkin4> <5082B07C.2030805@gentoo.org> <1350746241.12879.81.camel@belkin4> In-Reply-To: <1350746241.12879.81.camel@belkin4> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8C7CA433EE0286789F28F735" X-Archives-Salt: 5951efc7-f4ab-4b6b-a608-1b9bc6b4b247 X-Archives-Hash: c8595e9eb903bd427049ce8b916e819b This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8C7CA433EE0286789F28F735 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pacho Ramos schrieb: > El s=C3=A1b, 20-10-2012 a las 16:09 +0200, Thomas Sachau escribi=C3=B3:= > [...] >> And finally, as already pointed out by Rich, you should not talk about= >> any specific EAPI you like/prefer/want to be used everyhwere, but >> instead about the issue you want to solve. So just point out the issue= >> and ask the maintainer to fix it. If he uses a newer EAPI, good. If he= >> uses another solution, which also fixes the issue, also good. We shoul= d >> not discuss about a specific way to solve some issues, since this is t= he >> maintainers choice. Our goal should instead be to fix as many issues a= s >> possible with our limited amount of time we have for Gentoo. >> >> >=20 > Also, I see your point, the problem is: > - Do we agree we should move to packages with splitted > src_configure/prepare phases? In that case eapi >=3D2 should be enforce= d. I see no need for EAPI>=3D2 enforcement. The main advantage here is mostl= y the saved second default line from src_unpack/src_compile. This does not outweight the additional work for the EAPI-change. > - Do we agree mtimes should be preserved? In that case eapi >=3D3 shoul= d > be pushed because all ebuilds will use that enhancement. If a package has issues with not preserved mtimes, sure, bump it to EAPI>=3D3 to fix the issue. In any other case, there is no advantage at all for the additional work. > Regarding other issues like --disable-dependency-tracking, do you know > any way to automate a check for knowing if a package that could benefit= > from it (one using autotools) could pass it or not? If such a check > could exist, then, we would be able to only move that packages to newer= > eapi (or pass option manually) and that would be enough to me. The same= > would occur with --disable-silent-rules. Either ask our tinderbox users to do a full tree check or do such tinderbox setup/run yourself. There is no other automate way then to check each package, since you cant say for sure from the outside, what sort of build system is used. > --disable-dependency-tracking problem, or check that every package > needing revdep-rebuild will be moved to eapi5...=20 The most likely solution for this one will be, that whenever someone gets results from revdep-rebuild (or sees a message from @preserved-rebuild), he asks the lib maintainer to use the new dependency type from EAPI-5 to avoid this in the future. --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer --------------enig8C7CA433EE0286789F28F735 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlCCyf4ACgkQG7kqcTWJkGf3cgQAiK2kNMgOyevQ7UTHTNLdESfG D3zDkwA06KNwrGJCwGUKJGHXrQWCW1UBSqPtyjab677FFG6fvr9Y4GPhBshvWrF7 kyfQe05aRHUGLAQe+t27c6DSMFhNCeLg6RN6XNHioK9r6OI8uwP+XqKxszzsuoD5 aNfVYcyAkrgb7NeqCsk= =HLx0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8C7CA433EE0286789F28F735--