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 040C8138010 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 409B0E07F0; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:16:48 +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 4E6B0E07CC for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so949323bkw.40 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:15:56 -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=JfEOe20B/aHQypLAnGxm3fsf6hebskUsvTr6dyzhkfI=; b=WGYg8mbiTfB+/Tm5LlJjzDf1FP0BLw8HHqOCyQCYh1lIun9QM6p1dNBHa73KichyG7 lIubVgcBPYY19YB5OKDbpkYkAAtHYfuhYjlIRgdAku3R3VYmj40AIDBAvKcJKw6VvDhC SoATOrTp45CNzYE/NNiDEsKZVA4nOr3JpMilTg9UJowJn5jpSN0RsI8+5gu1VU6bNlgu 6URhKRCfcB6UvNeouK3YhnsaFDS/s+x84LCOi+j77FieT+h7lfpPzjmYSZDdf+F0coWF 9Id9AQ1WxhsmMmpTQSYijGrgZ0QmZcw4jSspUSVvPufEqyFBOR2KBdzd/QjY/W0IlK/j Yttg== 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 10.204.130.209 with SMTP id u17mr1504400bks.35.1346951756178; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.65.136 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:15:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5048D758.1050904@orlitzky.com> References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <201208311103.19398.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201209021510.55447.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <50436EDD.3030109@orlitzky.com> <20120904210619.GA18495@localhost> <5046A4FB.4000007@orlitzky.com> <5048D758.1050904@orlitzky.com> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:15:56 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ueaKZV9HMCw2oh_1Kfv_HkxHj80 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: fab10998-3d26-4a60-9f58-6fb08a9b4dd0 X-Archives-Hash: ac02f2ae230f4591d63102f9b1d8d854 On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > If there's really no reason, why would anyone bother to file a bug for > it? It's better for developers than the must-bump policy, and better for > users than what we have now. What change is even being proposed? If there is an issue that actually impacts users, then that issue is the bug, and bumping the EAPI is just the solution to the bug. If an ebuild unnecessarily ignores CFLAGS, or if it is a blocker to some eclass update, or whatever, then that is already considered a valid bug. That is my main concern with all of this stuff - just state what you need in terms of outcomes, not solutions. If you can't identify the outcome, then there is no need for the change anyway. By all means suggest solutions in the report, but don't confuse the solution with the problem. Rich