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 1E6C8138010 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E246E0662; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C117FE064C for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so826656bkw.40 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:14:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KhHBz6QSj7TNIhtd+qzeascWPy0rt9+OExXMpsNVWiE=; b=mzfFPJ6/m83batr+CvyNBvQ+/PYoS4sUO1UKzmj/kj/v6+onnx8SOAtM51bbjzz+yQ yxN9678gJh+SqZSbl24BTdYaHUACrQWyP4xjQjRq6YwXX/4UAJcP994rnJgnpS24zQwi W+uq2Ypf7aPiYKKWfxAr0vL8NHrCrrHPHabuDezn/t4w3trqWm3DRpPJ/qajgIsglLsI F6vb5iT8g+LXrUhdvl56hBU/8qR/QTRzCBHfSn1krIlJMrhaA5wIWbj5tUfRnMEzEqbd cHAmmg12Rf4fCtcpGasHSPqTMBbhyrLAzmOwOgc3xQg6JquX3L+kOzv2kbuUnYDO1W40 j3VQ== 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 Received: by 10.204.152.137 with SMTP id g9mr2783064bkw.106.1346332489697; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.14.76 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:14:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <503F64D1.6000203@gentoo.org> References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <1941775.YCGWEdgpfQ@elia> <503F64D1.6000203@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:14:49 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vXNPUMvHj9GOFpuTmkSGfW8nyOw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 26d12375-c721-41b7-8204-c242bbf15d2d X-Archives-Hash: 6ef5839f7e57ba3be5b3d9e1fba7801e On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > 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. What is the benefit from removing the old EAPIs? > > 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". Then ask nicely for everybody to implement these features, and make it a policy if necessary. Simply bumping an ebuild to EAPI=5 doesn't even guarantee that either of those features would be used anyway. If there is a benefit from some specific practice, then let's adopt it. However, I don't think that is the same as just bumping EAPIs for their own sake. When there is a benefit to adopting a new EAPI of course maintainers should try to take advantage of it. If there are specific changes we want to try to make tree-wide let's try to do that too. But, why bump ebuilds from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 when your only example of an end-user benefit would have been achieved if we just bumped from 0 to 5 in one step? Rich