On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 22:25 +1300 schrieb Alistair Bush: >> >> Tiziano Müller wrote: >> >> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the >> >> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the >> >> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least >> >> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the >> >> situation to be discussed in the council. >> >> >> > >> > Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you >> > could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild >> > compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI. >> > (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.) >> > >> >> Doesn't that just add extra complexity for no gain. > Yes, sure. I was just looking for a solution for the "we have countless > .eapi-X after 10 years" problem.
No one wants to be working with ebuild-29 or something like that in a few years and trying to figure out which feature came in which EAPI. Instead of bumping EAPI for each little change, save them up and bump no more than once a year or less, each bump bringing in some major new feature. With a little common sense and planning, we could make this a non-issue and give ebuild authors and PM devs alike a little time to get used to each change.
