Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-04-09

[Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org>]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:31:51 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Should we have a stricter rule? Would such a rule help significantly
> > reducing the number of EAPI 0 ebuilds?  
> I believe so. Maybe make repoman scream if you commit an ebuild with
> 1<=EAPI<=4 ?

I feel strongly against starting with anything but EAPI 0. And I
don't consider EAPI 4 old enough to start pestering maintainers about
it.

What we need is a live cycle of EAPIs to keep things manageable in the
long run. We aren't under pressure to get rid of as many as possible
ASAP. A simple scheme could be

- EAPI becomes second latest
- 5 years later repoman warns.
- 2 years later repoman errors out.

With that scheme EAPI=0  would be due soon. As the "bump to latest
eapi" policy isn't that old and seems to have only sunk in a about a
year ago, and the myth of still requiring system packages to be EAPI=0
kept a lot of the tree at EAPI=0 for a long time. Fact is EAPI 0 ebuilds
are still many, though the number started to crumble significantly
lately. So waiting another year before starting actively warn might be
appropriate.

The important thing is for the council to declare intent and timeframe,
so maintainers can plan far ahead. The other thing that became apparent
from last discussion is that a slightly low EAPI shouldn't be a card
blanch for zealots to touch packages they don't maintain or to file
bugs about it.