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 69C1A138010 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C90CE04C7; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:26:46 +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 31F8CE0444 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1051224bkw.40 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:25:33 -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=5ZbxI7a0dhEhh0cAF/7IQ8wzBF7LK+/t+fJyq14/FEo=; b=MhfoaXEqTSjC0z4DOVnGOKbnBO4iLr4KFOJ7FzXZqWzcue78MFSooP3XPTdw86SFH1 gu649qvjtM1RHbgGK5hKW7/sVG7R53B+Vw6Rkhrnh6M8ZYYKiUOuyDa5cXLnMTNBhsNR E9yzjFi4uOCniE/j/upIMwMFDXX3RZCIrguEhw+5awxKqhaP6m2qmfhC/+Hua4W1Y2vs F3YRDGmqnvP6nbxoWe5FKoXuzCyuv7F7nocWu9JsF3KvzmARYbe2YW8Z/g5XoBOIhswo oksrn+QtBMUuvco0idlaD7rdEvgPYf4ePUk2cM0kIOibagJRaJI+I0CaXUsF3+dJzzV+ Onmw== 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 10.204.148.86 with SMTP id o22mr3484217bkv.59.1346361932831; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.14.76 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:25:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <503FC2B2.4090103@gentoo.org> References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <503F477B.2050507@gentoo.org> <201208301527.07308.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <503FC2B2.4090103@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:25:32 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -h1MMCA6sewn040OYMABHKQtGBg 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: 57311390-8590-45c8-8afa-7cef2ef339e6 X-Archives-Hash: d617bcf31d507cc32c64f24455e9086d On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Andreas K. Huettel schrieb: >> Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012, 12:59:07 schrieb hasufell: >>> Could you elaborate what the reasons FOR it are (not that I don't know >>> any, but you brought it up) since this will add work for every developer >>> to check a) how the behavior of the new EAPI impacts the current ebuild >>> and b) how the behvaior of inherited eclasses change depending on EAPI. >> >> a) Easier eclass maintenance. >> Restricting the kde4 eclasses to EAPI 3 and 4 made the code indeed simpler. >> We'll raise that to 4 only soon (after fixing the remaining ebuilds in the >> tree.) > > An eclass, which includes helper commands like eutils or versionator > eclass wont benefit from it. Only specific eclasses (like your kde > example would benefit and for those, the related team can always decide > to bump all their packages to the wanted EAPI and then to bump the > eclass requirement. So no need to force this on everyone else. Agreed. I'm fine with asking maintainers to change EAPI in specific cases where there is a specific benefit. Diego sends me bug reports from time to time for whatever odd set of circumstances cause some kind of problem on a tinderbox, and when I can I fix the bugs and report upstream. The result is a better experience for all, even beyond Gentoo. If somebody wants to drop code in qt.eclass or whatever and my bumping EAPI makes their life easier they can always ask nicely and I'm happy to help out. What I don't see the value in is policies that extend the work beyond where the benefit lies. Rich